People v. Dane
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Alpena. (Emeriek, J.) Information for larceny. Convicted. The facts are stated in the opinion. The respondent was informed against for the larceny of seventy-six dollars, in money, and the bill of exceptions contains the following statement: “During the argument of Mr. Dafoe (the Prosecuting Attorney), the following occurred: Me.
Read the full summary
Error to Alpena. (Emeriek, J.) Information for larceny. Convicted. The facts are stated in the opinion. The respondent was informed against for the larceny of seventy-six dollars, in money, and the bill of exceptions contains the following statement: “During the argument of Mr. Dafoe (the Prosecuting Attorney), the following occurred: Me. Sleator. — I object to the prosecutor’s statement in •-■relation to the assault upon Waltonbury, and also to his statement, some time ago, that he knew that the defendant was the man who took the money, and I take an exception. The Court. — This remark of…
1Opinion of the Court
Ch&mplin, J.
In this case we are asked to reverse the judgment on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to support the conviction. We think that there was evidence tending to prove the allegations of the information. It was not very direct and positive, but the jury are the proper persons to draw all proper inferences from the facts proved. The case must be reversed, however, upon another ground.
The prosecuting attorney, in addressing the jury on behalf of the people, asserted to the jury that he knew that the defendant was the man who took the money. The attorney for the defendant…
2Cited by42 opinions
- People v. BahodaMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
- People v. DuncanMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
- People v. FarrarMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- People v. HumphreysMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
- People v. DalessandroMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.