Case Name: The People v. Irving Adams
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1893-05-31
Citations: 95 Mich. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People v. Irving Adams.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 541–543

Head Matter:
The People v. Irving Adams.
IAguor traffic — Local option law — Information — Evidence—Fermented cider — Former conviction.
1. An information charging the respondent with selling fermented cider, contrary to the provisions of a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors of the county where the suit is brought, pursuant to the provisions of the local option law, sufficiently alleges that the law had been made and was operative in said county at the time of the sale.
2. It is unnecessary for the people to prove in such á case the promulgation of the adoption of the preamble and resolution declaring the law operative in said county; section 17 of the act making a certified transcript of the record of the preamble and resolution evidence that its provisions are in full force therein.
3. The provision of the local option law forbidding the sale of fermented cider forecloses the inquiry whether cider which is fermented is intoxicating, whatever the stage of such fermentation.
4. In a prosecution for a second offense under the local option law, the record of the first conviction, which remains hnreversed, is admissible, even though a void sentence was imposed.
Exceptions before judgment from Van Burén. (Buck, J.)
Argued April 21, 1893.
Decided May 31, 1893.
Respondent was convicted of selling fermented cider in violation of tbe local option law.
Conviction affirmed, and tbe court below directed to proceed to sentence.
Tbe facts are stated-in the opinion.
Mills, Osborn & Cavanaugh, for respondent.
A. A. Bilis, Attorney General, and Lincoln H. Titus, Prosecuting Attorney, for tbe people.

Opinion:
McGrath, J.
Respondent was convicted of selling fermented cider, contrary to tbe provisions of a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors of the county of Van Burén in pursuance of the provisions of Act No. 207, Laws of 1889, and contrary to the provisions of said act.
The information is good. The allegation that the sale was contrary to the provisions of a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors pursuant to the provisions of the act is a'sufficient allegation that the act had been made and was operative. It is not .usually necessary in an information, in referring to a statute, to allege that the statute has taken effect, or has become or still is operative, and the reference in the present case is of the same nature.
It is unnecessary to prove the promulgation of the adoption of the preamble and resolution. Section 17 of the act makes a certified transcript of the record of the preamble and resolution evidence that the provisions of the act are in full force.
The jury were properly instructed that, if the cider sold was fermented, the respondent should be convicted. The statute prohibits the sale of fermented cider, and forecloses inquiry as to whether cider which is fermented is intoxicating, whatever the stage of fermentation. The sale was in December, and the proofs tended to show that the cider was fermented.
To prove the former conviction, the judgment was introduced, which showed that, upon a plea of guilty, respondent had been ordered to pay a fine of $100, and costs in the sum of $25, and, in default of payment of said sums, to be confined in the common jail until such fine and costs were paid. It is insisted that the sentence is void, under Brownbridge v. People, 38 Mich. 751, and People v. Carroll, 44 Id. 371. Act No. 207, § 16, provides that, "for the second and every subsequent offense so committed, he shall, upon conviction thereof," be sentenced, etc. Conceding the invalidity of the sentence, and that under this statute a conviction of the first offense must be shown, the former conviction stands unreversed. The conviction is the finding of guilt. 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 963; Stevens v. People, 1 Hill, 261; State v. Volmer, 6 Kan. 379; Nason v. Staples, 48 Me. 123; Com. v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 323. As is said by Gray, J., in Com. v. Lockwood,—
" The ordinary legal meaning of f conviction,.' when used to designate a particular stage of a criminal prosecution triable by a jury, is the confession of the accused in open court, or the verdict returned against him by the jury, which ascertains and publishes the fact of his guilt; while f judgment ' or f sentence ' is the appropriate word to denote the action of the court before which the trial is had, declaring the consequences to the convict of the fact thus ascertained."
It is the declaration of consequences, only, that is bad; but there is no reversal, the conviction stands as evidence of the fact, and the statute is satisfied.
The present case is here on appeal from a. judgment of conviction. That judgment is affirmed, and the court below is directed to proceed to sentence.
The other Justices concurred.