People v. Prinz

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Prinz

111 N.W. 739, 148 Mich. 307, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 530

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1907

DocketDocket No. 81

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 111 N.W. 739 (People v. Prinz) 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. Prinz, 111 N.W. 739, 148 Mich. 307, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 530 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of rape, and brings the case here for review on error.

It was conceded at the argument that no exception was taken to the rulings of the trial judge now complained of, and no requests to charge upon the questions which it is now claimed should have been covered. The general rule in criminal as well as civil cases is that this court will, on review, consider only such questions as were presented for the consideration of the trial court. People v. Wade, 101 Mich. 89; People v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337; People [308]*308v. Smith, 106 Mich. 431; People v. Carter, 117 Mich. 576. It is doubtless true that the trial judge should, even though no requests be preferred, cover the' general features of the case, define the offense, and indicate what it is essential to prove to establish the offense. This duty was fully performed in this case. We do not intimate that, if the questions discussed were all open to review, there was any prejudicial error.

The testimony was ample to warrant the conviction, which is affirmed.

McAlvay, C. J., and Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Montgomery, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of rape, and brings the case here for review on error.

It was conceded at the argument that no exception was taken to the rulings of the trial judge now complained of, and no requests to charge upon the questions which it is now claimed should have been covered. The general rule in criminal as well as civil cases is that this court will, on review, consider only such questions as were presented for the consideration of the trial court. People v. Wade, 101 Mich. 89; People v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337; People [308]*308v. Smith, 106 Mich. 431; People v. Carter, 117 Mich. 576. It is doubtless true that the trial judge should, even though no requests be preferred, cover the' general features of the case, define the offense, and indicate what it is essential to prove to establish the offense. This duty was fully performed in this case. We do not intimate that, if the questions discussed were all open to review, there was any prejudicial error.

The testimony was ample to warrant the conviction, which is affirmed.

McAlvay, C. J., and Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.W. 739, 148 Mich. 307, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-prinz-mich-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack