Yaner v. People
| Decision Date | 15 June 1876 |
| Citation | 34 Mich. 286 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | George W. Yaner v. The People |
Heard June 13, 1876; June 14, 1876
Error to Ionia Circuit.
Judgment set aside, and the prisoner discharged.
Mitchell & Pratt, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People, referred to Turner v. People, 33 Mich. 363.
The respondent was arrested, examined and held for trial, upon a complaint charging him with having committed the crime of murder. An information containing a similar charge was filed in the circuit court, upon which he was tried, found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to state prison for seven years.
Before pleading, a motion was made on behalf of the respondent to quash the information, "because it affirmatively appeared that the examining magistrate refused to determine whether the facts proven on the examination amounted to manslaughter or murder." The magistrate, in obedience to an order of court, made a special return, the part upon which this objection was based being as follows:
The examination of persons charged with offenses not cognizable by a justice of the peace was designed to take the place of a presentment by the grand jury. The law was always very strict in requiring grand juries to be definite and specific in relation to the offense charged in the indictment upon which it was sought to put the accused upon trial. The indictment could not be amended by the prosecuting attorney, nor could the accused be tried for another and different offense than the one charged. The statute permitted certain amendments to be made, but these were more in matter of form than substance; they did not change the nature of the accusation.
The legislature, in substituting or permitting examinations instead of indictments, did not intend thereby to withdraw from, or deprive a person accused of crime of any substantial right which previously existed. It was not designed that an examination in form only should be gone through with, and the accused bound over and put upon trial in the circuit court for an offense which the magistrate did not judicially determine to have been committed.
The statute provides that whenever complaint shall be made to a magistrate that a criminal offense not cognizable by a justice of the peace has been committed, he shall examine on oath the complainant and any and any witnesses who may be produced; and if it shall appear from such examination that any criminal offense not cognizable by a justice of the peace has been committed, the magistrate shall issue his warrant directed, etc., reciting the substance of the accusation, etc.-- §§ 7844, 7845, C. L. In all cases where the offense charged in the warrant is not punishable with death, or imprisonment in the state prison, the party may be admitted to bail before a magistrate of the county where the arrest was made.-- §§ 7847-48. It is very evident from an examination of this chapter (259) that when a complaint is first made, the examination of the complainant and witnesses then produced, is not only ex parte, but general. It is not confined to any particular offense, but if it appears from the whole examination that any criminal offense not cognizable by a justice has been committed, the magistrate shall issue his warrant; the warrant so issued must, however, specify some particular offense. What up to this time was general, now becomes more specific, and limits the subsequent proceedings. The magistrate, before whom any person is brought upon the charge of having committed an offense not cognizable by a justice of the peace, shall proceed to examine the complainant and the witnesses in support of the prosecution, on oath, in the presence of the prisoner, in regard to the offense charged, and in regard to any other matters connected with such charge, which he may deem pertinent.-- § 8755. And it is only when it shall appear from such examination that an offense not cognizable by a justice of the peace has been committed, and that there is probable cause to believe the prisoner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Windsor
...(1909), Justice Ailshie, who also authored State v. West, 20 Idaho 387, 118 P. 773 (1911), wherein McGreevey was followed, wrote: Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286, was a case identical in its facts with reference to preliminary examination, commitment, and information, with the case at bar. Th......
-
People v. Johnson
...specifying degree; jury must ascertain the degree). Neither People v. Duncan, 388 Mich. 489, 201 N.W.2d 629 (1972), nor Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286 (1876), provide precedent for reversal in the instant case. In Duncan, the Court did not overrule an express statutory provision on the sole ......
-
People v. Johnson
...the trier of fact, the jury is the final judge of credibility.") (quotation marks and citation omitted); 918 N.W.2d 689 Yaner v. People , 34 Mich. 286, 289 (1876) ("We do not 502 Mich. 568desire to be understood that the magistrate must nicely weigh evidence as a petit jury would, or that h......
-
State v. Foster
...P. 20; People v. Crespi, 46 P. 863; State v. Wright, 91 N.W. 311; People v. Christian, 35 P. 1043; Brown v. State, 64 N.W. 749; Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286; Davis v. State, 22 S.W. 979; State v. Farris, 51 P. 772; Com. v. Linton, 2 Va. 205; section 7954, Rev. Codes 1899. When an act is to......