*1 1967 SESSION, JANUARY CATTERSON. PEOPLE v. оp the Court. Assault. Law —Information—Felonious 1. Criminal another, eharges with assault on defendant whieh Informatiоn held, clearly knife, to inform armed with on the himself he will have to defend accused that fairly apprise hence using knife in the assaulting another of offense of accused and court 750.82, 767.45). (CL 1948, dangerous weapon §§ Ambiguity Assault — Information —Felonious 2. Indictment —Preliminary Examination. charging assault which de- to information Doubt as tеll ambiguous he could claims was fendant or of another he was accused of whether testimony pre- at up when have been cleared another should stabbed another liminary defendant had was that еxamination (CL 1948, 750.82). § Examination —-Defects—Waiver. Law — Criminal felonious assault waives guilty crime of circuit court to Plea propriety of any, defects, if there were (CL presented preliminary examination evidеnce § .82). op Guilty — Acceptance op — — Court Plea Procedure 4. Same Rules. guilty to pleaded in ease Entire reeord where held, complied with trial eourt to show that of felonious accеptance provisions of eourt rule 750.82; 1963, 785.3[2]). guilty (CL 1948, § [2] [3] [4, [1] 5] 21 Am Jur Am 21 Am Jur Am Jur Jur, 2d, References 2d, Criminal Law 446. Indictments 2d, Assault and Criminal for Points and Informаtions Battery Law 484 et § seq. Headnotes 137-ei seq. (488) v. Catterson. Dissenting Opinion.
T. G. op Guilty Acceptance op Plea —Procedure— Law — 5. Criminal Rule. Court *2 pleaded guilty crime Record ease where of felоni- court rule not show that court ous assault does talcing guilty, it does because of nature the acсused not show that the court of informed 1948, plea (CL or the Ms accusation of of .82; 1963, GCB 785.3[2] J. Jr.), Ager (William Appeаl Washtenaw; F., from May at Detroit. 1965, J. Submitted Division (Docket January 403.) No. Decided
Harvey felonious of L. Catterson was convicted appeals. Affirmed. assault. Defendant Kelley, Attorney Robert A. General, Frank J. Delhey, Derengoski, William F. General, Solicitor Prosecuting Attorney, B. Creal, Assist- and Robert people. Proseсuting Attorney, ant for the Crawford, Jr., defendant. Clan for January evening 3, 1964, of On the P. J. fight got a bar outside into a drunken was Dоnithan, who with his friend, sometime fight. pocket during knife cut defendant’s charged with felonious arrested and Defendant was Ann of in violation 28.277). examination was 1962 Rev to circuit court. over was bound had and defendant arraignment court on At offered counsel defendant was pleaded guilty Thereafter, he which he declined. prison charged for term sentenced to as years. appointed counsel was 2-4 Postconvictiоn appeal followed. him for App [Jan. Mich op the Coukt. assigns respects Defendant error in two in con- nection with the first, information: the infor- allege weapon mation does nse in the assault, and second, that the information was de- ambiguity per- identifying fective alleged son to have committed the оffense. The part pertinent objections of the information to these is: ** * “Harvey L. Catterson then and dangerous weapon,
there armed with a to-wit: a upon knife, with force and arms one Sebert feloniously Donithan, did make an assault, and he the said Sebert Donithan, then and there beat, did bruise, wound and ill treat.” chаrged under “assault another with defendant was * * * part, reads in gerous weapon.” suggests Defendant that the in- quoted formation could be understood *3 bearing using an assault while but not the gerous weapon and thus claims thаt it contains allegation no of violation of the statute. This strikes us as a strained construction to which the might similarly subjected. be We do not way. read either alleging that The information clearly an assault armed with a knife informs the accused that he will have defend himself on using the a knife in the assault. This is comply sufficient with § 28.985) provides Ann 1954 pertinently, Rev “the indictment or information shall contain: “1. language The nature of the offense stated in fairly apprise which will the accused and the court charged.” of the offense respect. find no We error in this The claim that the information was defective for haye person ambiguity in identifying the аlleged to People Catterson. v. Opinion of ti-ie Coukt. groundless. This is ancient the offense committed lаnguage the de- archaic confused with its form says, he not tell whether he now could fendant, Donithan or was Sebert was accused he The Donithan. accused testimony cleared the examination should have when it up that stated this doubt Donithan. had stabbed assignments are concerned of error other
Two
produced
preliminary
at the
exam
with the evidence
ination.
challenges
and the
The first
By
propriеty
pleading
of such evidence.
second
any
guilty
court,
defect,
defendant waived
preliminary
to the
with
was,
if
there
reference
such
People
(1963),
v. Dobine
371 Mich
examination.
allegation
is that the
final
of error
Defendant’s
compliance
with
to show
fails
record
785.3(2).
reading of the entire record cоnvinces
A
the trial court
with the
court
provisions
under the decision of
of the rule
Bumpus (1959),
Affirmed. P. concurred J. J.,
Fitzgerald, agree (dissеnting). I cannot T. G. 785.3(2) provisions satis- were of GCR that the that the court in- show record does not fied. the accusation of the nature of accused formed plea. his or a new and order the conviction aside would set I *4 trial.