People v. Randall

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Randall

95 N.W. 551, 133 Mich. 516, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 539

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1903

DocketDocket No. 177

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 N.W. 551 (People v. Randall) 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. Randall, 95 N.W. 551, 133 Mich. 516, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 539 (Mich. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of statutory rape upon a child under the age of 16 years. Error is [517]*517¡alleged upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to ¡sustain a conviction: (1) Because she was prompted to make the complaint by the prosecuting attorney; (2) because her testimony is contradicted by the defendant, thus making the evidence balance.

It is unnecessary to discuss the testimony at length. The conduct of the defendant, immediately after the arrest ■of his brother upon a similar charge, is indicative of a fear ■of prosecution, and tends to corroborate the charge. The case was peculiarly one fora jury. Evidently they believed the child and disbelieved her uncle. Her surroundings, and the habits of life, and want of care over her, of her mother, subjected her to unusual dangers. The responsibility for this conviction rests upon the jury, where it properly belongs, and we cannot say that the verdict was not just. It evidently met the approval of the learned circuit judge who heard the cause, and who would doubtless refuse to permit a grossly improper verdict to stand.

The judgment is affirmed.

'The other Justices concurred.

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

Hooker, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of statutory rape upon a child under the age of 16 years. Error is [517]*517¡alleged upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to ¡sustain a conviction: (1) Because she was prompted to make the complaint by the prosecuting attorney; (2) because her testimony is contradicted by the defendant, thus making the evidence balance.

It is unnecessary to discuss the testimony at length. The conduct of the defendant, immediately after the arrest ■of his brother upon a similar charge, is indicative of a fear ■of prosecution, and tends to corroborate the charge. The case was peculiarly one fora jury. Evidently they believed the child and disbelieved her uncle. Her surroundings, and the habits of life, and want of care over her, of her mother, subjected her to unusual dangers. The responsibility for this conviction rests upon the jury, where it properly belongs, and we cannot say that the verdict was not just. It evidently met the approval of the learned circuit judge who heard the cause, and who would doubtless refuse to permit a grossly improper verdict to stand.

The judgment is affirmed.

'The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.W. 551, 133 Mich. 516, 1903 Mich. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-randall-mich-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack