Templeton v. People
| Decision Date | 22 July 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 500 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Andrew J. Templeton v. The People |
Heard July 16, 1873
Error to Saginaw Circuit.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered. An order entered requiring the prisoner to be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Saginaw county, to be held pursuant to law.
William A. Clark, C. S. Draper and William H. Sweet, for plaintiff in error.
Dan. P Foote and Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, for the People.
The plaintiff in error was charged with an attempt to murder by poison, and was convicted and sentenced.
On the trial the prosecution was allowed, under objection, to give in evidence the return of the examining magistrate, to show that upon the examination he gave no evidence, and the court instructed the jury that they were at liberty to consider this as entitled to more or less weight, as it should seem to them proper and just, as evidence bearing on the prisoner's guilt.
We think in this the court erred. While we do not doubt but that the fact that a person charged with crime makes no defense on the preliminary examination, may be necessary and proper evidence frequently to support or establish some point or proposition, we are clearly of opinion that it cannot be introduced, as in this instance, on the trial of the charge on which he was examined, to prove his guilt. The statute expressly gives the prisoner an election to make or not make defense on his examination before the magistrate, and any rule which would make the exercise of such right, one way or the other, a ground of presumption against his innocence on the trial, would be nearly, if not quite, tantamount to a denial of the right altogether. The law wisely leaves him to his free choice to put in evidence or not, before the magistrate, and this privilege cannot be hampered by making its exercise one way a ground of inference on the trial, of his criminality. The right to refrain from defensive action before the magistrate is as clearly given as the right to take the contrary course, and it would be reflecting upon the consistency and justice of the law to say that while it secures this as an absolute right of the prisoner in the proceedings, it at the same time turns it into evidence against him.
An objection was taken to the sufficiency of the first count in the information on the ground, as we understand, that it did not set forth the special...
To continue reading
Request your trial