Case Name: PEOPLE v. STRICKLAND
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1943-06-30
Citations: 306 Mich. 58
Docket Number: Docket No. 83, Calendar No. 42,109
Parties: PEOPLE v. STRICKLAND.
Judges: Chandler, North, Starr, Wiest, Butzel, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred with Bushnell, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 306
Pages: 58–64

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. STRICKLAND.
1. Criminal Law — Questions Renewable — Searches and Seizures. In prosecution for unlawfully selling alcoholic liquor and with unlawfully keeping and possessing the same for sale, question of unlawful search and seizure not having been presented to trial court' will not be considered on appeal (Act No. 8, Pub. Acts 1933 [Ex. Sess.], as amended).
2. Same — Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence.
In prosecution for unlawfully selling alcoholic liquor and with unlawfully keeping and possessing the same for sale, evidence that poliee officer, on complaint of operation of “blind pig” at defendant’s premises, entered with another man and latter’s woman companion at 3:50 a.m., was served with liquor by a waiter to whom officer paid $1 which was in turn paid defendant was sufficient to sustain a conviction (Act No. 8, Pub. Acts 1933 [Ex.'Sess.], as amended).
3. New Trial — Newly-Discovered Evidence — Cumulative Testl mony.
Denial of motion for new trial on ground of newly-discovered evidence was proper where proposed testimony was merely cumulative and no showing was made that defendant had made any effort to produce the additional witness at the trial.
4. Criminal Law — General Determination by Court in Non jury Case — Amendment—Intoxicating Liquors.
In prosecution for unlawfully selling alcoholie liquor and for unlawfully keeping and possessing the same for sale, tried without a jury, court’s general conviction of defendant was erroneous and was not curable by amendment so as to eliminate conviction on count as to possession (Act No. 8, Pub. Acts 1933 [Ex. Sess.], as amended).
Boyles, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit; Stein (Christopher E.), J.
Submitted April 15, 1943.
(Docket No. 83, Calendar No. 42,109.)
Decided June 30, 1943.
Willa C. N. Strickland was convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Daniel P. O’Brien, for appellant.
Herbert J. Rushton, Attorney General, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General, William E. Dowling, Prosecuting Attorney, and Edward M. Welch and
Harold Helper, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.

Opinion:
Bushnell, J.
Defendant, "WTlla C. N. Strickland, was charged with unlawfully selling alcoholic liquor and with unlawfully keeping and possessing the same for sale. She waived, a trial by jury and was convicted by the trial judge and sentenced to be confined in the Detroit house of correction for a term of not less than six months nor more than one year. After imposition of the sentence the trial judge amended the judgment by finding the defendant guilty on the selling count in the information and dismissing the count as to possession.
Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction, and that the court erred in denying her motion for new trial. She also asserts that the complaining officer made an unlawful search and seizure in violation of her constitutional rights, and that the court erred in amending the finding after sentence was pronounced without reducing the period of confinement.
The question of unlawful search and seizure was not presented to the trial court and will not be considered here.
The testimony shows that about 3:50 in the morning a police officer went to the premises at 441 Alfred street on a "complaint of a blind pig there." The officer testified that, as he reached the front door another man and' his woman companion arrived; that the defendant admitted him with them and he was directed to the kitchen, where a waiter served him some liquor; that he paid the waiter $1, which the waiter gave to the defendant in his presence. This was disputed by the defendant, who testified in her own behalf. The testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence was supported by the affidavit of one Charles Carlisle, who claimed that he was present at the time bnt knew nothing of defendant's arrest until he read about it in a newspaper. His affidavit indicates that his testimony would be in accord with that of the defendant. Defendant's only explanation for not calling Carlisle as a witness is that he "was not available." The testimony which Carlisle proposed to give is merely cumulative, and there is no showing that defendant made any effort to produce him at the time of the trial.
The trial judge could not cure his erroneous general finding of guilty by amending that finding. People v. Powers, 272 Mich. 303. See, also, People v. Stuart, 274 Mich. 246.
The finding and sentence of the court are vacated and a new trial granted.
Chandler, North, Starr, Wiest, Butzel, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred with Bushnell, J.