People v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 28 August 1972
• Docket Number: Docket No. 8552,No. 2,2
• Citation: 202 N.W.2d 557,42 Mich.App. 359
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 557

202 N.W.2d 557

42 Mich.App. 359

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 8552.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Aug. 28, 1972.

Leave to Appeal Denied Oct. 17, 1972.

Released for Publication Dec. 8, 1972.

Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

T. M. BURNS, Judge.

The defendant was charged in the prosecutor's two-count information with the crimes of arson, M.C.L.A. § 750.72; M.S.A. § 28.267, and the wilful burning of his home with the intent to injure and defraud his insurance company, M.C.L.A. § 750.75; M.S.A. § 28.270. The jury found the defendant guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced from 8 1/2 to 20 years on the first count and 5 1/2 to 10 years on the second count. Defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant contends that the prosecution never established the Corpus delicti of the crimes charged.

Expert testimony at the trial revealed the following: (1) the fire was not caused by lightning because the day was clear and cold; (2) the greatest damage from the fire was in the living room; (3) on the day of the fire, the kitchen stove was functioning normally; (4) defendant's furnace was not the cause of the fire nor was the fuse box, any electrical source or outlet, the living room lamp or lamp cord, nor was any explosion the cause of the fire; (5) the dogs which died in the fire could not have caused the fire by biting on the electrical cords; (6) the lighting fixtures on the Christmas tree in defendant's living room did not cause the fire; (7) careless smoking or neglect was not the cause; (8) the northeast corner of the living room was the point of origin of the fire, and there was a considerable amount of white ash in the corner which would be the residue of the newspapers defendant generally stored there; (9) electrical equipment in that corner did not cause the fire; and (10) the living room couch and chair were not the source of the fire.

In addition the people offered proofs to establish that defendant was in financial trouble; defendant was in the house alone some ten to twenty minutes before the fire started; defendant had stated that if a fire occurred in his house, he would need a good alibi; defendant tried to pursuade witnesses not to testify against him; defendant was aware that the home was covered against fire loss, but told officers on the scene that he didn't know whether he had insurance or not; defendant changed fuses in the fuse box after the fire as a 'joke' on the investigating officer; defendant attempted to get a woman to go to Florida with him when he received the insurance proceeds; defendant almost doubled the insurance coverage not long before the fire; defendant stated that all he had left were the clothes on his back when in fact he had left clothing with a friend out of state prior to the fire; and that defendant had stated that if you want something done right, you had to do it yourself.

In People v. Porter, 269 Mich. 284, 292, 257 N.W. 705, 708 (1934), the Supreme Court stated:

'The crime of arson is so peculiarly one of secrecy that often the only evidence of the unlawful character of the fire is found in the acts and admissions of a person having opportunity and motive. This is such a case. Defendant was alone in the house. Only she knew whether the fire was innocent or evil. If evil, she set it. The only means of determining the character of the fire, aside from inconclusive physical evidence, were her conduct and statements and their consistency with innocence or guilt. Both the Corpus delicti and defendant's guilt rested upon the same state of facts, and the evidence could not be separated to permit the proof of one without also proving the other.'

It is our opinion that the evidence tending to show motive and opportunity, together with the evidence negating accidental cause, is sufficient to establish Corpus delicti.

Defendant next contends that all of the evidence obtained by the investigating officer should have been suppressed because the evidence was obtained without benefit of a search warrant. Defendant relies on Camara v. San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), and See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967).

In Camara, the Court held that occupied dwellings could not be inspected for ordinance violations without a warrant. The Court in See applies the Camara decision to places of business as well as dwellings.

In the instant case we are dealing with neither an occupied dwelling nor a place of business. The house and contents were destroyed by fire and were no longer suitable for any purpose. In Camara, supra, at 528, 87 S.Ct. at 1730, it is stated:

'The basic purpose of this (Fourth) amendment, as recognized in countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.'

We see no invasion of defendant's privacy or security as a result of the investigation of the destroyed premises. There was no violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights as a result of the investigation.

Defendant next contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The statement complained of reads as follows:

'You can't say, 'Well, how that fire started, whether or not he lit it with a match or used a wick or used an accelerant, or what he did in that corner was not proven by the people, and therefore, you can't convict him.'

'We will never know unless Gordie Johnson or someone were to tell us. We will never know unless the defendant--he testified at preliminary examination--can be shown to be guilty by his inconsistent statements and his conduct that was totally inconsistent with innocence.'

It is defendant's position that the above comments constitute an impermissible reference to the fact that defendant did not testify at trial.

In People v. Alexander, 26 Mich.App. 321, 182 N.W.2d 1 (1970), a factually similar incident occurred as is complained of here. This Court stated at 324--325, 182 N.W.2d at 3:

'Defendant also asserts that it was error for the prosecutor on final argument to state that no contradiction to the people's testimony has been offered by the defense, and further to state that, '(a)nd he, as we stand here, appears alone fully to know what happened, that is, the defendant Alexander.' We agree. M.C.L.A. § 600.2159 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 27A.2159). However, where, as here, the court fully covers the point in its...