Roberts v. People
Decision Date | 05 January 1870 |
Citation | 19 Mich. 401 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | M. Henry Roberts v. The People |
Error to Calhoun Circuit.
Information presented to the Circuit Court for the County of Calhoun by the prosecuting attorney of that county, charging M. Henry Roberts, the plaintiff in error, with an assault upon Charles E. Greble, with intent to commit the crime of murder. The defendant was convicted on the trial, and the case now comes before this Court upon the bill of exceptions settled and signed by the Circuit Judge.
Upon the trial, to prove the issue on the part of the people evidence was given tending to show that the defendant and one Greble met in the city of Battle Creek, on or about the 10th of March, 1868, between eight and eleven o'clock in the forenoon; that Greble asked defendant when he was going to bring the rest of the wood down; that defendant replied that he had brought all that he was going to, that he had agreed to bring six cords; that Greble replied that only four or four-and-a-half cords had been brought; that defendant said he measured it when he drew it, and if Greble wanted to measure it, he ought to have come and measured it; that Greble said if defendant did not bring the wood he would sue him, but defendant said he would do nothing about it, and the parties separated.
The people then rested, and the defendant "gave evidence tending to show that the mother of the defendant was living and was insane, with lucid intervals, and has been so for five years last past, and is now 56 years of age:
And the defendant further "gave evidence tending to show that on one occasion when two ordinary doses or drinks of whisky were administered to him for neuralgia, he was thereby deprived of the use of his mental faculties, and became ungovernable, and insisted that he must go to New York immediately, where he had formerly lived, although he had not contemplated going there before he took the whisky:
After the defendant had rested, the said People further, by the way of rebutting the defense, "gave evidence tending to show that the defendant was deprived of the use of his mental faculties at and before and after the assault by his own voluntary intoxication."
The cause was then argued to the Court and jury, and the said defendant, by his counsel, requested the Circuit Judge to charge the jury as follows:
But the Circuit Judge refused to so charge as to each of said requests; to which refusal the defendant excepted.
The Judge then instructed said jury as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Whitfield
...voluntarily puts himself into a condition to have no control of his actions, must be held to intend the consequences.' " (Roberts v. The People (1870) 19 Mich. 401, 416, quoting People v. Garbutt (1868) 17 Mich. 9, 19.) "[I]t is argued that, because intoxication produces a state of mind tha......
-
People v. Langworthy
...the crime charged also involved a specific intent." People v. Guillett, 342 Mich. 1, 6, 69 N.W.2d 140 (1955). See, also, Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401 (1870). Thus, if a crime is determined to require only a general intent, the defendant's voluntary intoxication during the commission of a......
-
Stuebgen v. State
...reasons given for our conclusion. We are well aware and in full accord with that doctrine which is well expressed in the case of Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401, cited by counsel, as follows: 'When a statute makes an offense to consist of an act combined with a particular intent, that inten......
-
People v. Garcia
...30 Mich. 16 (1874). Another problem with some of the cases is that the crime charged was not a homicide. An example is Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401 (1870), which involved an assault with intent to commit murder. In hopes of ending the confusion and on the authority in Potter and Scott, w......
-
Just say no excuse: the rise and fall of the intoxication defense.
...Initially, a defendant's responsibility for his conduct was an irrebuttable presumption. See, for example, Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401 (1870), in which the court stated: He must be held to have purposely blinded his moral perceptions, and set his will free from the control of reason -- ......