Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Mich. 309

People v. Marble

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1878

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1878-01-29

<p> New trial in cases of felony. </p> <p>New trial in eases o£ felony was not granted at common law.</p> <p>New trial in cases of felony is allowed by Michigan statutes in only two ways, viz.: (1) on exceptions sustained by the Supreme Court, and (2) by the trial court at the term at which trial was had, or the next term.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In this instance a new trial has been refused by this court on exceptions, and by the circuit court on a motion heretofore made in season. We think the statute fixing the time for such a motion cannot be enlarged in its operation; and, as there is no such remedy at the common law, the party is confined to the statutory remedy, which is now barred by lapse of time.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Nichols v. Houghton Circuit Judge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-01-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1921

4 state decisions

20187818801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This case, having been before the court on exceptions, was sent back to the circuit court for the county of Ingham with directions to proceed and sentence the prisoner, who had been convicted of murder.

¶2She now desires leave to apply for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and for other reasons. More than one term-has expired since her trial.

¶3At common law a new trial was not granted in cases of felony, and the provisions in our State allowing it are purely statutory. Our statutes allow it to be had only in two ways: (1) on exceptions properly taken and' sustained by the Supreme Court, and (2) by the court wherein the respondent was tried, “at the same term, or at the next term thereafter.” Comp. L., ch. 262.

¶4In this instance a new trial has been refused by this court on exceptions, and by the circuit court on a motion heretofore made in season. We think the statute fixing the time for such a motion cannot be enlarged in its operation, and as there is no such remedy at the common law, the party is confined to the statutory remedy, which is now barred by lapse of time.

¶5*310Without discussing the affidavits, we must deny the motion, as the power of the circuit court in the matter is exhausted.

/38/mich/309 · .json · Public domain