Ward v. People
| Decision Date | 24 July 1874 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William Ward v. The People |
Heard July 8, 1874
Error to Kent Circuit.
Judgment of the circuit court, affirming the judgment of the justice, affirmed.
O. H Look, for plaintiff in error.
Isaac Marston, Attorney General, for the People.
Christiancy J.:
The only question in this case is, when a defendant brought before a justice of the peace upon a criminal complaint for a simple assault and battery, triable by a justice's court under chapter 94 of the Revised Statutes of 1846 (Comp. L. of 1871, chapter 179), having pleaded not guilty, and being asked by the justice if he wishes a trial by a jury, declares tat he does not, and submits to a trial without calling for a jury, whether, under our constitution, a trial by the justice without a jury, is valid; or whether it must be regarded as a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
The statute in question (Sec. 6, Chap. 179, Comp. L. of 1871) not only provides that he may be tried by the justice under such circumstances, but that the justice may proceed to try the issue and determine the case "if no jury be demanded."
The constitution (Article 6, Sec. 18) provides that justices of the peace "shall have such criminal jurisdiction, and perform such duties, as shall be prescribed by the legislature." But the section upon which the plaintiff in error relies is section 27 of the same article, which is in these words: "The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be deemed to be waived in all civil cases, unless demanded by one of the parties in such manner as shall be prescribed by law."
It is very clear that this section in its application to criminal cases, does not authorize any implied waiver of a jury from the silence of a defendant, or his mere failure to demand a jury; and in my opinion (though the point does not arise here), in a criminal case, where, under our humane system of administering criminal law, nothing is to be inferred against a prisoner for his standing mute, he cannot properly be regarded as having waived a jury--a trial by which is generally esteemed a privilege--by merely failing to demand it, notwithstanding the statute cited so provides. But upon this point, as it is not necessarily involved, my brethren express no opinion. But it is further insisted by the plaintiff in error that the provisions of section 27, article 6 of the constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Gen. ex rel. O'hara v. Montgomery
...misdemeanor, the statute does provide for such waiver; and it has been uniformly held a jury in such cases may be waived. Ward v. People, 30 Mich. 116;People v. Steele, 94 Mich. 437, 54 N.W. 171;People v. Weeks, 99 Mich. 86, 57 N.W. 1091;People v. Lane, 124 Mich. 271, 82 N.W. 896;People v. ......
-
Dickinson v. United States
... ... Justice Cooley relied on as supporting the conclusion which ... we have attributed to him is undoubtedly found in Hill v ... The People, 16 Mich. 351, 357, decided in 1868. There ... the opinion was given by Judge Christiancy, and was concurred ... in by all the other judges, ... 286, 2 Am.Rep. 301; ... [159 F. 823] ... Logan v. State, 86 Ga. 266, 12 S.E. 406; State ... v. Woodling, 53 Minn. 142, 54 N.W. 1068; Ward v ... People, 30 Mich. 116; Commonwealth v. Sweet (Quart ... Sess.) 16 Pa.Co.Ct.R. 198; Id., 4 Pa.Dist.R. 136; ... State v. Alderton, 50 ... ...
-
People v. Kirby
...Mich. 193 (1861), waiver of a jury was recognized at this time as a substantial right only if allowed by the Legislature. See Ward v. People, 30 Mich. 116 (1874). Moreover, where the statute allowed unconditional waiver, upon election solely by the defendant, the defendant alone had the rig......
-
State v. Cottrill
...bound by his waiver of a trial by jury. Com. v. Bailey, 12 Cush. 80; Com. v. Whitney, 108 Mass. 5; Darst v. People, 51 Ill. 286; Ward v. People, 30 Mich. 116; Dailey v. State, 4 Ohio St. 57; Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Murphy v. Com., 1 Metc. (Ky.) 365; Tyra v. Com., 2 Metc. (Ky.) ......