People v. McMillan

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. McMillan

18 N.W. 390, 52 Mich. 627, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 836

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 N.W. 390 (People v. McMillan) 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. McMillan, 18 N.W. 390, 52 Mich. 627, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 836 (Mich. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Eespondent was complained of and examined on a charge of uttering a forged check of Yan Winkle & Montague on the Caro Exchange Bank for $97.65. -The information contained counts for forgery and for the offense of uttering and publishing. On the trial the testimony indicated that he had passed the forged paper on one Epstine. The court when requested refused to charge that he could not under the original complaint on which he was examined and under which the information was supposed to be authorized, be convicted of the crime [628]*628of forgery. He was found guilty generally, and was sentenced for the specific crime of forgery.

As under our statutes these two offenses are distinct and separate crimes, and as under our criminal practice, as fixed by law, a prisoner cannot be lawfully prosecuted by information for a crime on which he has not been examined, or waived examination, there was error in refusing this request,, and in dealing with him for forgery.

There are some other points in the case, but as they are not likely to arise hereafter without such oversight as we are not disposed to anticipate, we make no reference to^ them.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Campbell, J.

Eespondent was complained of and examined on a charge of uttering a forged check of Yan Winkle & Montague on the Caro Exchange Bank for $97.65. -The information contained counts for forgery and for the offense of uttering and publishing. On the trial the testimony indicated that he had passed the forged paper on one Epstine. The court when requested refused to charge that he could not under the original complaint on which he was examined and under which the information was supposed to be authorized, be convicted of the crime [628]*628of forgery. He was found guilty generally, and was sentenced for the specific crime of forgery.

As under our statutes these two offenses are distinct and separate crimes, and as under our criminal practice, as fixed by law, a prisoner cannot be lawfully prosecuted by information for a crime on which he has not been examined, or waived examination, there was error in refusing this request,, and in dealing with him for forgery.

There are some other points in the case, but as they are not likely to arise hereafter without such oversight as we are not disposed to anticipate, we make no reference to^ them.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.W. 390, 52 Mich. 627, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcmillan-mich-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack