People v. Allen
| Decision Date | 20 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 77-5114 |
| Citation | 91 Mich.App. 63,282 N.W.2d 836 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Violet May ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. 91 Mich.App. 63, 282 N.W.2d 836 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[91 MICHAPP 64] Karl A. H. Bohnhoff, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Peter D. Houk, Pros. Atty., Charles M. Sibert, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P. J., and BRONSON and CYNAR, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and now appeals by right.
Jimmy James Allen, defendant's husband, was found shot to death in the kitchen of his Lansing home. An autopsy showed that he had received two gunshot wounds, one a superficial wound to the back and a second wound which had punctured his right lung and ruptured his aorta causing[91 MICHAPP 65] him to bleed to death. Defendant confessed to the crime, stating that she went upstairs to the bedroom where her husband was sleeping and shot him in the back. Her husband got out of bed, and ran downstairs to the kitchen. Defendant said she followed him and then shot him a second time. The prosecution also presented testimony that prior to killing her husband, defendant stated she wanted her husband killed and on two occasions had talked to friends about trying to find her a hit man to kill her husband, a task for which she was willing to pay $500, and finally $1,000.
Defendant's first allegation of error concerns the use of her statements to establish the corpus delicti of first-degree murder and causes us to examine the scope and extent of the corpus delicti rule.
The traditional definition of the corpus delicti of any felonious homicide has been a dead body with a criminal agency as its cause. See La Fave and Scott Criminal Law, § 4, p. 16 (1972). These requirements were certainly met in the present case as the placement of the mortal wounds excludes the possibility of them being self-inflicted. In Michigan, however, our Supreme Court has stated that in order to establish the corpus delicti of first-degree murder, the prosecution must show not only the two above-mentioned elements, but must also prove the element which distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder which, in the present case, is premeditation. People v. Sparks, 393 Mich. 135, 224 N.W.2d 481 (1974); People v. Allen, 39 Mich.App. 483, 494, 197 N.W.2d 874 (1972), dissenting opinion, Levin, J., adopted by the Supreme Court, 390 Mich. 383, 212 N.W.2d 21 (1973).
The physical and circumstantial evidence in this case does not appear in and of itself to establish [91 MICHAPP 66] the element of premeditation. Therefore, the only way the prosecution could have proven premeditation was through defendant's confession or through the statements made by defendant prior to the murder.
It has long been the rule in this state that the corpus delicti of a crime cannot be established by the extrajudicial confession of the accused. People v. Allen, 390 Mich. 383, 212 N.W.2d 21 (1973); People v. Ranney,153 Mich. 293, 116 N.W. 999 (1908). Therefore, defendant's confession could not have been used to establish the corpus delicti.
Defendant also contends, however, that All of her statements, not just her confession, must be excluded when establishing the corpus delicti. We do not agree.
The corpus delicti rule only precludes confessions and admissions which necessarily amount to a confession from being used to establish the corpus delicti. See People v. Porter, 269 Mich. 284, 290, 257 N.W. 705 (1934); People v. Allen, 39 Mich.App. 483, 505, fn. 23, 197 N.W.2d 874 (1972). 1 Statements made by the accused prior to the time the crime was committed do not amount to confessions, because at the time they were made no crime had been committed and therefore there is nothing to confess or admit to. Thus, statements made prior [91 MICHAPP 67] to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...N.W.2d 740 (1981), lv. den. 414 Mich. 970 (1982); People v. Johnson, 93 Mich.App. 667, 672; 287 N.W.2d 311 (1979); People v. Allen, 91 Mich.App. 63, 66, 282 N.W.2d 836 (1979); People v. Wells, 87 Mich.App. 402, 408-409, 274 N.W.2d 797 (1978); People v. Hawkins, 80 Mich.App. 481, 485, 264 N.......
-
People v. Oliver
...this Court. People v. Drielick, 56 Mich.App. 664, 667-668, 224 N.W.2d 712 (1974), lv. den., 396 Mich. 813 (1976); People v. Allen, 91 Mich.App. 63, 66, 282 N.W.2d 836 (1979); People v. Johnson, 93 Mich.App. 667, 673, 287 N.W.2d 311 (1979); People v. Losey, 98 Mich.App. 189, 196-197, 296 N.W......
-
People v. Williams
...742. When establishing the corpus delicti of a crime, the extrajudicial confessions of the accused cannot be used. People v. Allen, 91 Mich.App. 63, 66, 282 N.W.2d 836 (1979). However, statements made by the accused prior to the time the crime was committed do not amount to confessions beca......
-
People v. Johnson
...made by the defendant were insufficient, by themselves, to constitute a confession of guilt under Porter. See People v. Allen, 91 Mich.App. 63, 282 N.W.2d 836 (1979). Moreover, they are properly considered as indicative of defendant's state of mind at the time they were made; the first some......