People v. Williams

• Citation: 341 N.W.2d 143,129 Mich.App. 362
• Decision Date: 15 December 1983
• Docket Number: Docket No. 53160
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lester WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 143

341 N.W.2d 143

129 Mich.App. 362

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lester WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 53160.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 9, 1983.

Decided Sept. 1, 1983.

Released for Publication Dec. 15, 1983.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., George B. Mullison, Pros. Atty., and Thomas J. Rasdale, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by Mardi Crawford, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.

Before MAHER, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and MARUTIAK, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and was sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison. He now appeals by leave granted.

On April 15, 1978, Frances Brattler, a 79-year-old woman, was found dead in her home in Bay City. Thinking that she had died of natural causes, Ms. Brattler's son-in-law, who had discovered the body, arranged to have the body taken to a funeral home. While preparing the body for the funeral, the mortician noticed a wound in the chest and notified the medical examiner. After an autopsy, it was determined that the cause of death was a stab wound to the chest and aorta. It was later discovered that Ms. Brattler was killed on April 13, 1978.

Various pieces of evidence presented at trial implicated defendant in the crime. Several persons testified that they had seen defendant driving Ms. Brattler's car on the days following her death. His fingerprints were also found on the outside of the car. Additional fingerprints were found in the kitchen and dining room of Ms. Brattler's home. A tape recording was played to the jury in which defendant described to the police how he committed the crime. In that confession, the defendant told the police the location of the murder weapon, a knife. The knife was later admitted into evidence. Testimony was received indicating that the blood found on the knife matched that of the victim and that the fibers clinging to the knife were consistent with those taken from the victim's robe.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder in the perpetration of a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. Defendant moved for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court denied the motion.

On appeal, defendant raises seven issues, one of which is meritorious.

Defendant argues that the people failed to establish the corpus delicti of first-degree murder aliunde the defendant's confession. It has long been the law in this state that the people must establish every element of an offense by evidence other than the extrajudicial statements of the accused. People v. Allen, 390 Mich. 383, 212 N.W.2d 21 (1973). ¹ The people argue that Allen, which involved a conviction for first-degree felony-murder, does not apply where first-degree murder is based on premeditation and deliberation. At least two panels of this Court have adopted this view. See People v. Rappuhn, 55 Mich.App. 52, 222 N.W.2d 30 (1974), and People v. Sparks, 53 Mich.App. 452, 220 N.W.2d 153 (1974). Other panels have found that Allen applies to first-degree murder whether based on an enumerated offense or on deliberation and premeditation. People v. Allen, 91 Mich.App. 63, 282 N.W.2d 836 (1979); People v. Hawkins, 80 Mich.App. 481, 264 N.W.2d 33 (1978). We agree with the latter position and hold that Allen is applicable to the present case.

The defendant argues that, absent his confession, the evidence received at trial was insufficient to support a finding of premeditation. We agree. The people argue that the evidence showed that the victim was a very neat housekeeper, that her body was found in the dining room, and that the knives were kept in the kitchen. The people infer that the defendant had to go from the dining room to the kitchen to obtain a knife before stabbing Ms. Brattler. This brief journey, the people conclude, gave defendant enough time to take the "second look" at his intended conduct necessary to a finding of premeditation.

Although premeditation need not be established by direct evidence, People v. Hoffmeister, 394 Mich. 155, 229 N.W.2d 305 (1975), it cannot be found as the result of mere speculation, People v. Johnson, 93 Mich.App. 667, 287 N.W.2d 311 (1979). We find that it is "mere speculation" to infer from the evidence that the defendant went to the kitchen to secure a knife before stabbing Ms. Brattler. Such speculation will not support a jury's finding of premeditation.

Consequently, we vacate the defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and remand for entry of a judgment of conviction of second-degree murder,%2990,0000,129 Mich.App. [PG367] M.C.L. Sec. 750.317; M.S.A. Sec. 28.549, and for resentencing.

We discuss briefly defendant's remaining issues.

First, defendant maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue. A trial court's ruling on a motion for change of venue will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Prast (On Rehearing ), 114 Mich.App. 469, 319 N.W.2d 627 (1982). The defendant argues that a change of venue was required due to adverse pretrial publicity. Such publicity does not in itself mandate a change of venue. Prast, supra, p. 480, 319 N.W.2d 627. Before a change of venue will be granted, the defendant must demonstrate that there is a pattern of strong community feeling or bitter prejudice against him and that the publicity has been so extensive and inflammatory that jurors could not remain impartial when exposed to it. Prast, supra, p. 480, 319 N.W.2d 627. After reviewing the record, we find that defendant has not met that burden. None of the jurors had been exposed to any of the pretrial publicity and each stated that he or she could render an impartial verdict based on the evidence.

Second, defendant argues that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the results of a psychological test to defendant before trial requires reversal. The prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose all of the evidence of which it has knowledge bearing on the charged offense. People v. Sizemore, 69 Mich.App. 672, 245 N.W.2d 159 (1976). The prosecution's failure to disclose the test results to the defendant is error. However, such error was harmless. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the error is so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial system that it can never be considered harmless, nor do we find that but for the error it is reasonably possible that one juror would have voted to acquit.

Third, defendant contends that the court erred in submitting to the jury a charge of first-degree murder based on a theory of felony-murder. The defendant claims that only misdemeanor larceny was alleged as the underlying offense and that a felony must be alleged to charge first-degree murder. The statute provides: "All murder * * * which shall be committed in the...