Semon v. People

Michigan Supreme Court

Semon v. People

3 N.W. 304, 42 Mich. 141, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 729

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 3 N.W. 304 (Semon v. People) 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

Semon v. People, 3 N.W. 304, 42 Mich. 141, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 729 (Mich. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.

The only error set up in this cause, which is a bastardy case, is that the court below denied a request to charge the jury that they should not find against the respondent below unless the testimony satisfied them beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and did [142]*142charge them that they might be satisfied by a clear preponderance of evidence.

The nature of these proceedings was explained in Cross v. People, 8 Mich., 118, as not criminal in the proper sense of the term, but special and peculiar. The judgment, if it can be properly called a judgment, involves none but civil consequences. We do not think the rule holding it necessary to establish misconduct beyond- a reasonable doubt is one which needs any extension. It is very proper where a person is subjected to criminal punishment, and is well rooted in criminal jurisprudence. But it is the nature of the prosecution and not the character of the act which authorizes its application. We held in Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich., 49, that when a criminal act came in controversy in a civil cause, the rule did not apply. We think the principle of that case governs this, and that there was no error in the rulings below.

Judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Campbell, C. J.

The only error set up in this cause, which is a bastardy case, is that the court below denied a request to charge the jury that they should not find against the respondent below unless the testimony satisfied them beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and did [142]*142charge them that they might be satisfied by a clear preponderance of evidence.

The nature of these proceedings was explained in Cross v. People, 8 Mich., 118, as not criminal in the proper sense of the term, but special and peculiar. The judgment, if it can be properly called a judgment, involves none but civil consequences. We do not think the rule holding it necessary to establish misconduct beyond- a reasonable doubt is one which needs any extension. It is very proper where a person is subjected to criminal punishment, and is well rooted in criminal jurisprudence. But it is the nature of the prosecution and not the character of the act which authorizes its application. We held in Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich., 49, that when a criminal act came in controversy in a civil cause, the rule did not apply. We think the principle of that case governs this, and that there was no error in the rulings below.

Judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.W. 304, 42 Mich. 141, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semon-v-people-mich-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack