People v. Stackhouse

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Stackhouse

13 N.W. 364, 49 Mich. 76, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 495

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 4, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 N.W. 364 (People v. Stackhouse) 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. Stackhouse, 13 N.W. 364, 49 Mich. 76, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 495 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Marston, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of arson in burning a grist-mill. On the trial Lizzie Stack-house, wife of a brother of respondent, was examined as a witness in his behalf. On cross-examination she was asked if she remembered saying to George Dibler and George Walker the night the accused was arrested, that she always did suspect Jerry burned the mill. Her answer was that she did not. Afterwards Dibler and Walker were called and testified under objection that she had so stated. The question raised is, was it competent to thus impeach Lizzie Stackhouse? Upon the argument my impressions were strongly in favor of the admissibility of this evidence because the effect thereof would be to destroy, or at least weaken, the testimony of the principal witness. An examination of the authorities cited by counsel for respondent compels a different conclusion. The opinion or suspicions of the witness out of court, although inconsistent with the conclusion which the facts she testifies to on the trial would warrant, cannot be made the basis of an impeachment. This is so firmly settled by the authorities that the question cannot be considered an open one.

The judgment must therefore 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

Marston, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of arson in burning a grist-mill. On the trial Lizzie Stack-house, wife of a brother of respondent, was examined as a witness in his behalf. On cross-examination she was asked if she remembered saying to George Dibler and George Walker the night the accused was arrested, that she always did suspect Jerry burned the mill. Her answer was that she did not. Afterwards Dibler and Walker were called and testified under objection that she had so stated. The question raised is, was it competent to thus impeach Lizzie Stackhouse? Upon the argument my impressions were strongly in favor of the admissibility of this evidence because the effect thereof would be to destroy, or at least weaken, the testimony of the principal witness. An examination of the authorities cited by counsel for respondent compels a different conclusion. The opinion or suspicions of the witness out of court, although inconsistent with the conclusion which the facts she testifies to on the trial would warrant, cannot be made the basis of an impeachment. This is so firmly settled by the authorities that the question cannot be considered an open one.

The judgment must therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.W. 364, 49 Mich. 76, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stackhouse-mich-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack