Michigan Supreme Court, 1907

People v. Prinz

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided April 30, 1907 · Hooker, McAlvay, Montgomery, Moore, Ostrander

148 Mich. 307; 111 N.W. 739; 1907 Mich. LEXIS 530

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Brott (Mich. 1910)
People v. McDaniels (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)
People v. Watts (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Ora Jones (Mich. 1975)
People v. Mack (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Townes (Mich. 1974)
People v. Knott (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Alcala (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Karasek (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. St Cyr (Mich. 1974)
People v. McCoy (Mich. 1974)
People v. Liggett (Mich. 1967)
People v. Guillett (Mich. 1955)
People v. Lenkevich (Mich. 1975)
People v. Cummins (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
People v. McCaleb (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
People v. Price (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
People v. Tolewitzke (Mich. 1952)
People v. MacPherson (Mich. 1949)
People v. Kanar (Mich. 1946)
People v. Bigge (Mich. 1939)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Montgomery, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of rape, and brings the case here for review on error.

It was conceded at the argument that no exception was taken to the rulings of the trial judge now complained of, and no requests to charge upon the questions which it is now claimed should have been covered. The general rule in criminal as well as civil cases is that this court will, on review, consider only such questions as were presented for the consideration of the trial court. People v. Wade, 101 Mich. 89; People v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337; People *308v. Smith, 106 Mich. 431; People v. Carter, 117 Mich. 576. It is doubtless true that the trial judge should, even though no requests be preferred, cover the' general features of the case, define the offense, and indicate what it is essential to prove to establish the offense. This duty was fully performed in this case. We do not intimate that, if the questions discussed were all open to review, there was any prejudicial error.

The testimony was ample to warrant the conviction, which is affirmed.

McAlvay, C. J., and Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.