People v. Boyd

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Boyd

199 N.W. 662, 228 Mich. 57, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 738

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1924

DocketDocket No. 100.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 N.W. 662 (People v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Boyd, 199 N.W. 662, 228 Mich. 57, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 738 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiest, J.

This is review, on exceptions before sentence, of defendant’s conviction of a violation of the prohibition law. The 17th day of August, 1921, officers followed two men into defendant’s place of business in the city of Hillsdale and seized, without a search warrant, two glasses of hard cider there furnished the men. An analysis of the cider disclosed upward of five per cent, of alcohol. On Saturday, October 6, 1923, defendant’s counsel served a motion to suppress the evidence seized by the officers and noticed the same for hearing on Monday, October 8th, that being the first day of the October term of the circuit court for the county of Hillsdale.

*58 Circuit Court Rule No. 15 requires four days’ notice of motions and, upon objection by the prosecuting attorney, the trial judge declined to hear the motion. The casé was reached for trial the next day and defendant was tried and convicted. This court stands firmly committed to the procedure requiring a motion to suppress evidence to be made before trial. People v. Campbell, 160 Mich. 108 (34 L. R. A. [N. S.] 58, 136 Am. St. Rep. 417); People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 (3 A. L. R. 1505); People v. Miller, 217 Mich. 635; People v. Perrin, 223 Mich. 132; People v. Vulje, 223 Mich. 656.

In the Vulje Case we held to the procedure mentioned, and applied the rule requiring four days’ notice. of such a motion, and such is the rule unless the court in its discretion, on good cause shown, shortens the time. No cause was shown and none existed in the case at bar for shortening the time, as several terms of the circuit court had intervened between defendant’s arrest and trial and, therefore, ample opportunity had been afforded for presenting such motion.

The Vulje Case is controlling and, as defendant’s other assignments of error have no merit, the conviction is affirmed and the circuit court advised to proceed to judgment.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, and Fellows, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wiest, J.

This is review, on exceptions before sentence, of defendant’s conviction of a violation of the prohibition law. The 17th day of August, 1921, officers followed two men into defendant’s place of business in the city of Hillsdale and seized, without a search warrant, two glasses of hard cider there furnished the men. An analysis of the cider disclosed upward of five per cent, of alcohol. On Saturday, October 6, 1923, defendant’s counsel served a motion to suppress the evidence seized by the officers and noticed the same for hearing on Monday, October 8th, that being the first day of the October term of the circuit court for the county of Hillsdale.

*58 Circuit Court Rule No. 15 requires four days’ notice of motions and, upon objection by the prosecuting attorney, the trial judge declined to hear the motion. The casé was reached for trial the next day and defendant was tried and convicted. This court stands firmly committed to the procedure requiring a motion to suppress evidence to be made before trial. People v. Campbell, 160 Mich. 108 (34 L. R. A. [N. S.] 58, 136 Am. St. Rep. 417); People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 (3 A. L. R. 1505); People v. Miller, 217 Mich. 635; People v. Perrin, 223 Mich. 132; People v. Vulje, 223 Mich. 656.

In the Vulje Case we held to the procedure mentioned, and applied the rule requiring four days’ notice. of such a motion, and such is the rule unless the court in its discretion, on good cause shown, shortens the time. No cause was shown and none existed in the case at bar for shortening the time, as several terms of the circuit court had intervened between defendant’s arrest and trial and, therefore, ample opportunity had been afforded for presenting such motion.

The Vulje Case is controlling and, as defendant’s other assignments of error have no merit, the conviction is affirmed and the circuit court advised to proceed to judgment.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, and Fellows, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.W. 662, 228 Mich. 57, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boyd-mich-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack