C.rimlnal cases: Sill of exceptions: Motion to quash. A bill of exceptions in a criminal case should embrace every ruling raising a question of law, whether on the trial or in the proceedings preliminary thereto, by which the defendant claims that his rights were in any way prejudiced; and the proceedings upon a motion to quash the information are always proper to be incorporated into the bill of exceptions if required by the defendant.
Heard and decided October 28.
Application for mandamus.
The relators were convicted, in the Calhoun circuit, of arson, and sentenced. They thereupon sued out a writ of error to bring said cause up for review, and tendered to the respondent a bill of exceptions for settlement, and the latter declined to incorporate into the bill certain proceedings and motions in the cause, on the ground that they were no proper or legal part of a bill of exceptions. The *269proceedings sought to be introduced into the bill were those had upon a motion to strike from the files a rejoinder to a replication to a plea to the jurisdiction, and to default the defendant for want of rejoinder, a motion for leaye to file a second rejoinder, and a motion to quash the-information.
Mandamus is now sought to compel the respondent to-incorporate such proceedings into the bill.
Brown & Patterson, for the relators.
James A. Miner, Prosecuting Attorney, for the respondent.
held that a bill of exceptions in a criminal case should contain every ruling raising a question of law,, whether on the trial or in the proceedings preliminary thereto, by which the defendants claim that their- rights-were in any way prejudiced: and the proceedings upon a motion to quash the information are always proper to be incorporated into the bill of exceptions, if required by the-defendants.
Mandamus granted.
28 Mich. 268
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!