People v. Leneschmidt

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Leneschmidt

245 N.W. 544, 260 Mich. 671, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1196

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1932

DocketDocket No. 203, Calendar No. 36,527.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 245 N.W. 544 (People v. Leneschmidt) 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. Leneschmidt, 245 N.W. 544, 260 Mich. 671, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1196 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Fead, J.

Complaint for bastardy alleged that the child was begotten on or about the 9th day of May, 1930, the occasion and circumstances being definitely stated. The proofs placed the time in the forepart of April, without change of the occasion and circumstances. Defendant claims fatal variance as to dates.

Conviction must be confined to the act charged in the complaint. Showing of other acts of intercourse is permitted only as bearing on the probability of commission of the one relied on. People v. Schilling, 110 Mich. 412. When the date is alleged with particularity, it must be proved as laid (Hull v. People, 41 Mich. 167; People v. Wilson, 136 Mich. 298), but amendment may be permitted (People v. Cole, 113 Mich. 83). But where the date is not alleged with particularity, variance in the time is not fatal, if the verdict is confined to the particular act within the scope of complaint upon which the prosecution introduces evidence for the purpose of procuring conviction. People v. Swanson, 217 Mich. 103; 7 C. J. p. 987.

In this case there was testimony of two acts of intercourse. The court carefully confined conviction to the one charged. Defendant was apprised by the examination that complainant was uncertain of the date, but the occasion was made clear. The defense was an alibi, and defendant’s evidence covered the time relied upon as fully as it did the date named in the complaint. No motion was made for continuance after the court ruled that the act could be shown as of the forepart of April, nor does the *673 record indicate that defendant was deprived of a fair trial nor injured in his defense by the variance.

The other points raised have been examined, are without merit, and need no discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Fead, J.

Complaint for bastardy alleged that the child was begotten on or about the 9th day of May, 1930, the occasion and circumstances being definitely stated. The proofs placed the time in the forepart of April, without change of the occasion and circumstances. Defendant claims fatal variance as to dates.

Conviction must be confined to the act charged in the complaint. Showing of other acts of intercourse is permitted only as bearing on the probability of commission of the one relied on. People v. Schilling, 110 Mich. 412. When the date is alleged with particularity, it must be proved as laid (Hull v. People, 41 Mich. 167; People v. Wilson, 136 Mich. 298), but amendment may be permitted (People v. Cole, 113 Mich. 83). But where the date is not alleged with particularity, variance in the time is not fatal, if the verdict is confined to the particular act within the scope of complaint upon which the prosecution introduces evidence for the purpose of procuring conviction. People v. Swanson, 217 Mich. 103; 7 C. J. p. 987.

In this case there was testimony of two acts of intercourse. The court carefully confined conviction to the one charged. Defendant was apprised by the examination that complainant was uncertain of the date, but the occasion was made clear. The defense was an alibi, and defendant’s evidence covered the time relied upon as fully as it did the date named in the complaint. No motion was made for continuance after the court ruled that the act could be shown as of the forepart of April, nor does the *673 record indicate that defendant was deprived of a fair trial nor injured in his defense by the variance.

The other points raised have been examined, are without merit, and need no discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 N.W. 544, 260 Mich. 671, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leneschmidt-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack