Wakely v. Johnson

Michigan Supreme Court

Wakely v. Johnson

73 N.W. 238, 115 Mich. 285, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1237

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 73 N.W. 238 (Wakely v. Johnson) 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

Wakely v. Johnson, 73 N.W. 238, 115 Mich. 285, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1237 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Under this record there is no evidence to sustain the verdict. The defendant had done all that the law required him to do by placing all the material facts in the possession of his own and the prosecuting attorney, and acting upon their advice. Perry v. Sulier, 92 Mich. 72; White v. McQueen, 96 Mich. 249. But his counsel did not request the court to direct a verdict, and therefore the judgment cannot, for that reason, be reversed. Certain prejudicial errors were, however, committed.

1. The court stated to the jury that the plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charge. There was no trial, and therefore no acquittal. A dismissal of the case for a defective complaint is not an acquittal. An acquittal is a deliverance from the charge of guilt.

2. It was error not to give the following request:

“The proofs in this case show that the defendant fully stated all the facts in this case to legal counsel before going to the prosecuting attorney. I charge you that an attorney of experience has a legál and moral right to advise whether certain facts will justify a criminal charge and arrest, and the person receiving such advice is justified in acting upon it if he fully and fairly states the facts to the attorney. The evidence in this case shows [288]*288that this criminal case was dismissed by the justice before whom it was pending on May 10th, the adjourned day. I charge you that a dismissal of this charge by the nonappearance of the prosecuting attorney is not sufficient evidence of want of probable cause.”'

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Under this record there is no evidence to sustain the verdict. The defendant had done all that the law required him to do by placing all the material facts in the possession of his own and the prosecuting attorney, and acting upon their advice. Perry v. Sulier, 92 Mich. 72; White v. McQueen, 96 Mich. 249. But his counsel did not request the court to direct a verdict, and therefore the judgment cannot, for that reason, be reversed. Certain prejudicial errors were, however, committed.

1. The court stated to the jury that the plaintiff had been acquitted of the criminal charge. There was no trial, and therefore no acquittal. A dismissal of the case for a defective complaint is not an acquittal. An acquittal is a deliverance from the charge of guilt.

2. It was error not to give the following request:

“The proofs in this case show that the defendant fully stated all the facts in this case to legal counsel before going to the prosecuting attorney. I charge you that an attorney of experience has a legál and moral right to advise whether certain facts will justify a criminal charge and arrest, and the person receiving such advice is justified in acting upon it if he fully and fairly states the facts to the attorney. The evidence in this case shows [288]*288that this criminal case was dismissed by the justice before whom it was pending on May 10th, the adjourned day. I charge you that a dismissal of this charge by the nonappearance of the prosecuting attorney is not sufficient evidence of want of probable cause.”'

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.W. 238, 115 Mich. 285, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wakely-v-johnson-mich-1897.

Opinion

2. It was error not to give the following request:

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack