Wagner v. People
| Decision Date | 20 October 1874 |
| Citation | 30 Mich. 384 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Wagner v. The People |
Heard October 15, 1874
Error to Saginaw Circuit.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of burglary, and sentenced.
Judgment against the plaintiff in error reversed, and a new trial awarded.
Dillingham & Ransford, for plaintiff in error.
Isaac Marston, Attorney General, for the People.
Christiancy J.:
The only exception which requires to be noticed relates to the admission of testimony for the prosecution, to prove a conversation between one Wood, the people's witness, and one Highton.
Wood had testified in chief, that he searched near Highton's house for the stolen property, and found a coffee-pot (which Hollon, the alleged owner from whom it was stolen, identified as his), and also a pair of pants. The prosecuting attorney then asked Wood, by whose direction he searched there, and he replied, "by Highton's." He was then cross-examined by defendant's counsel, and swore to what occurred between him and Highton at the time, and explained the inducements held out to Highton to disclose. But the witness did not assume to detail the conversation of Highton; but said, as he had on his direct examination that Highton told him where to dig. The court then allowed him, on his redirect examination, against defendant's objection, to give the whole of what Highton said on that occasion; and, among other things, that Highton told him that defendant concealed the goods where they were found. This the court admitted, on the alleged ground that the prosecution had the right to call out the whole conversation, of which the defendant had given a part. But we think this was error. Wood was the people's witness, as well when under cross-examination as on his examination in chief; and the fact that without objection the witness was allowed to swear both on his direct and cross-examination, that Highton told him where to look, afforded no ground for the prosecution to go into hearsay, against defendant's objection. The testimony of Wood, being necessarily connected with, and to be treated as a part of, his evidence in chief, was testimony on the part of the people, and by the people's witness; and as such, a part of the people's case. See Wilson v. Wagar, 26 Mich. 452, 459. And it was not admissible for the prosecution to claim, that, because a part of the hearsay story of the witness had been told, the rest must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McClelland
...v. People, 86 Colo. 35, 278 P. 594, 65 A.L.R. 1260;Schaser v. State, 36 Wis. 429;Gold v. United States, 2 Cir., 26 F.2d 185;Wagner v. People, 30 Mich. 384;Croft v. Thurston, 84 Mont. 510, 276 P. 950. Reference has been made to statements in Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) to the effect that “......
-
State v. McClelland
... ... 263, 40 L.Ed. 388; State v ... Pratt, 114 Kan. 660, 220 P. 505, 34 A.L.R. 189; Karnes v ... State, 111 Neb. 435, 196 N.W. 676; Wilder v. People, 86 Colo ... 35, 278 P. 594, 65 A.L.R. 1260; Schaser v. State, 36 Wis ... 429; Gold v. United States, 2 Cir., 26 F.2d 185; Wagner v ... People, ... ...
-
Karnes v. State
...the rest of it against objection on the redirect examination, upon the claim that it is part of the same conversation.” Wagner v. People, 30 Mich. 384. The question was simply in what part of the building the room was, and did not call for any statements made by prosecutrix. The language of......
-
Brew Woltman & Co. v. Nat'l Power Mach. Co.
...did not open the door to evidence as to the entire conversation. Hamilton v. State, 205 Ind. 26, 184 N.E. 170;Wagner v. People, 30 Mich. 384;State v. Chodos, 147 Minn. 420, 180 N.W. 536. In the conclusions of law filed by the trial court in this case, it is evident that he changed his opini......