Stewart v. People

• Citation: 3 N.W. 863,42 Mich. 255
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 29 November 1879
• Parties: JAMES STEWART v. THE PEOPLE.

3 N.W. 863

42 Mich. 255

JAMES STEWART v. THE PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 29, 1879

The showing made to an examining magistrate, upon which a warrant is issued for the arrest of one alleged to have committed a criminal offence, is sufficient evidence upon which the magistrate may hold the person charged, if when brought before him for examination he waives such examination distinguishing Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286. A joint information may be filed against parties arrested upon separate complaints and warrants, and held for a joint offence, and they may be tried jointly unless they claim separate trials. That the offence is joint need not appear from the magistrate's return, to authorize a joint information. Criminal prosecutions for offences not cognizable before a justice may be instituted by private persons without consent of public prosecutor. Certain instructions as to the evidence offered to establish an alibi in this case, requiring that it be of such character as to preclude the possibility of the defendant being in both places at the same time, considered and held to cast a burden of proof on the defendant greater than the law required, and erroneous. Possession alone, of stolen property, is not prima facie evidence that the possessor committed the burglary at which they were stolen.

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids.

Fred. A. Maynard, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kirchner, Attorney General, for the people.

MARSTON J.

The respondent was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. Several errors have been assigned. Each will be considered so far as deemed important.

The respondent was arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint sufficient in form and substance, waived examination, and was thereupon held for trial. A motion was made to quash the information, and denied. This is alleged as error.

It was insisted upon argument that even although the respondent waived an examination before the examining magistrate, yet that evidence must have been introduced by the people, in order that the magistrate might find that a crime had been committed, and that there was probable cause to believe that the respondent was guilty thereof, and where more than one offence was charged in the complaint and warrant, that the magistrate might be able to judicially determine from such evidence for which offence the party might be committed and put on trial, and in support of these positions we are cited to section 7855, Comp.Laws; Yaner v. The People, 34 Mich. 286.

The section referred to requires the magistrate before whom any person is brought, upon a charge of having committed an offence not cognizable by a justice, to proceed as soon as may be to examine the complainant and witnesses in support of the prosecution, in regard to the offence charged. A compliance with this section the accused has a clear right to insist upon, and he just as clearly has the right to waive it, thereby consenting that he be held for trial for the offence charged against him. The statute clearly recognizes this right, and authorizes an information to be filed where such examination has been waived. Section 7944. And where the accused waives his right to such examination no witness need be produced, sworn or examined on the part of the prosecution. The magistrate is not authorized to issue a warrant except upon complaint made that a crime has been committed, and after an examination by him of the complainant on oath, and any witnesses that may be produced by him. If it appears from such examination that a criminal offence has been committed, then the warrant is issued. The showing thus made for the issue of a warrant is sufficient evidence upon which the magistrate may hold the person charged in the complaint and warrant, if when brought before him he waives the right given him by statute to have an examination of the witness in his presence. Such we believe has been the well settled practice, acquiesced in under this statute.

There is nothing in the case of Yaner v. The People indicating even a different practice. In that case there was an examination of witnesses under the statute in presence of the accused. In such a case the magistrate must, from the evidence then introduced, unless after a part is given further examination is waived, determine what offence has been committed, and whether there is probable cause to believe the person accused guilty thereof. Where such examination is waived the magistrate binds the party over for trial for the offence charged in the complaint and warrant, and the prosecuting attorney may file an information charging any offence contained in the warrant which, in his opinion, the evidence will sustain. If the accused desires that the examining magistrate shall more specifically designate the offence committed, where the one charged in the warrant includes others of less degree, then he must not waive examination as in this case.

It appeared that the complaint and warrant under which the respondent was arrested and bound over charged him alone with the commission of the offense. Three others had been complained of, examined and held for the same offence. The information filed charged the four jointly. Error is alleged that respondent having been arrested and held for trial on a separate complaint and warrant, he could not be charged jointly with others in the information.

Where parties have been arrested upon separate complaints and warrants, and held for a joint offence, we are of the opinion that they may be jointly charged in the...