Smith v. People
| Decision Date | 19 April 1861 |
| Citation | 2 Mich. 415 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Smith v. The People |
Error to Washtenaw Circuit.
New trial awarded.
O Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
Wm Hale, Attorney General, for the people.
By the Court, Douglass, J.
Smith the plaintiff in error, was tried at the last October term of the Washtenaw Circuit Court, on an indictment which had been found against him, for having in his possession counterfeit bills of a banking company, known as the Wisconsin Fire and Marine Insurance Company. On the trial, one Allen Comstock, who had been indicted and arrested at the same time with the prisoner, for passing counterfeit bills of the kind described in the indictment in this cause, and who had, on pleading guilty, been sentenced to sixty days imprisonment in the Washtenaw county jail, was called as a witness on the part of the prosecution, and after having testified to sundry facts, tending strongly to prove the guilt of the prisoner, was asked on cross-examination, whether "he had not stated, while in jail, to Martin Badgero and other persons named, that Smith, the defendant below, was innocent of the charge made against him; that he (Smith) did not know the money was bad; that he sold his watch and got the money." To which question the witness answered that he "did not recollect having made such a statement to Badgero, or to any other persons, while in jail; that if he did, it was false; but he did not recollect saying any such thing; that he was very careful what he did say to them in jail."
In the further progress of the trial, Badgero was called as a witness on the part of the defense, and having testified that he had been in jail with Comstock, was asked by defendant's counsel whether, while there, Comstock made to him the statement before referred to. This question was objected to by the prosecuting attorney, on the ground that Comstock, when cross-examined on the subject, had not denied having made such statements. The Court sustained the objection. To this decision the defendant below excepted.
We think the Court below should have permitted this question to be answered, although the rule of law on this subject is by no means very well established. The authorities nearly all agree that before the credit of a witness can be impeached by proof that he has made verbal statements, out of Court, and relevant to the matter in issue, contrary to what he has testified at the trial, it is necessary first to ask him as to the time, place and person involved in the supposed contradiction. If the witness admits the statements imputed to him, there is of course no occasion for further evidence on the subject. If he denies them they may be proved by other witnesses. But as to what may be done when the witness neither admits nor denies having made the statements, but merely says he does not recollect having done so, elementary writers are by no means explicit. See 1 Green. Ev. § 462, '3; 1 Ph. Ev. by C. & H., 293; 3 ib. 774; 1 Starkie Ev. 183; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 183...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Salimone
...It is well settled the same questions must be asked the witness subject to be impeached as are asked of the impeaching witness. Smith v. People, 2 Mich. 415;Rice v. Rice, 104 Mich. 371, 62 N. W. 833;Monroe Lumber Co. v. Bezeau, 192 Mich. 307, 158 N. W. 880;Koehler v. Buhl, 94 Mich. 496, 54 ......
-
People v. Brown
...Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.1 Smith v. People, 2 Mich. 415 (1852).2 We are not unaware of the dicta in People v. Durkee, 369 Mich. 618, 120 N.W.2d 729 (1963), cited by the majority in Hill v. Ha......
-
People v. Graves, Docket No. 4323
... ... It has been well established in Michigan, at least since Smith v. People ... (1852), 2 Mich. 415, that unless the witness admits the prior inconsistent statements, which the eyewitness did not in this instance, he can be impeached by independent evidence ... However, in the case at bar, defendant's claim of reversible error has no merit ... ...
-
Lightfoot v. People
...has previously made such statements, with convenient certainty of time, place and circumstance: Sawyer v. Sawyer, Walker Ch., 48; Smith v. People, 2 Mich. 415. where the statements relied upon for contradiction are not verbal, the rule is otherwise. In the Queen's Case, 2 Brod. and Bing., 2......