People v. Minnock
This text of 18 N.W. 390 (People v. Minnock) 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.
Opinion
The record in this case shows that defendant was prosecuted under a complaint which merely charged that on a day named he ■ didsell, furnish to, give and deliver spirituous liquors, malt liquors, brewed liquors, fermented liquors and vinous liquors” without having given bond as required by the Laws of 1881, p. 350.1 The complaint alleged no sale or other delivery to any person or persons, and did not identify any act or acts as illegal. This .defect is alleged as ground for setting aside the conviction. There is nothing in the record except the complaint to identify the charge.
We think the objection is well taken. The elementary principles of criminal law require every charge to be made with proper averments of timej place and person or circumstance. The respondent cannot without such averments know what he is to meet. The section under which the charge is made does not attempt to punish as a single offense the setting up of a contraband business as a business, and the punishment for such extensive action would hardly [630]*630be confined to the small penalties of section 6 [How. St. §'• 2275], which are undoubtedly designed to reach single offenses. The complaint does not allege the establishment of such a business as a business. It is merely an imperfect charge of what was intended to include some single transgression. As such it is invalid for the uncertainty.
The judgment must be reversed and the prisoner discharged without day.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
18 N.W. 390, 52 Mich. 628, 1884 Mich. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minnock-mich-1884.