People v. Burlingame

• Decision Date: 02 March 1932
• Docket Number: No. 197.,197.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BURLINGAME.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

257 Mich. 252

241 N.W. 253

PEOPLE

v.BURLINGAME.

No. 197.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 2, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County, in Chancery; Blaine W. Hatch, Judge.

R. N. Burlingame was convicted of arson, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Joe C. Foster, of Lansing (Cummins & Cummins, of Lansing, of counsel), for appellant.

Paul W. Voorhies, Atty. Gen., William J. Kearney, Pros. Atty., of Albion, and Horace M. Mechem, Asst. Pros. Atty., of Battle Creek, for the People.

BUTZEL, J.

R. N. Burlingame, respondent, was convicted of arson. He owned and conducted a drug store on the ground floor of a two-story building in Albion, Mich. The suite of rooms over the store had been continuously vacant for a long period previous to April 22, 1931. On the evening of that day a fire broke out in one of the rooms. A fire had visited respondent's store in 1928 and again in 1929. The first originated in either an adjoining building or the wall partitioning off another store theretofore occupied by him in the same block; the other occurred in the present store. Both times there were substantial losses, and respondent recovered insurance and subsequently ran fire sales.

The entrance to the stairway leading to the rooms above the store is from the street. A few steps from the entrance is a landing with a doorway leading into the adjoining store. Further up, another doorway leads into an apartment occupied by a Mrs. French. At the top of the stairway there was a steel door, securely locked, which it was necessary to pass through in order to enter the rooms above respondent's store. It was necessary to pass through two other doors locked with padlocks in order to reach the room in which the fire occurred. This particular room had no windows but a skylight, and the entrance was through one of the padlocked doors. The room had been damaged by the 1929 fire, and, after the repairs were made, it was carefully cleaned. There was no stove, or other heating apparatus, or any rubbish or movable objects of any kind or nature in the room. Some wires previously ran through the area covered by the 1929 fire, but they were dead and useless, as their connections with all live wires had been cut off. They could not have caused the 1931 fire. The charged wires were incased in a metal conduit under the floor. Respondent at one time had the keys to the padlocks on the two inner doors of the suite, but had returned them to the owner of the building.

Respondent was seen on the stairway previous to the date of the fire in the instant case. He explained this fact by stating that he occasionally delivered telephonic messages to Mrs. French and her daughter. Respondent's financial condition was not bad. He owned considerable property, and, although pressed for money, he was better off than the average business man. He carried insurance on his stock and fixtures, but there is no claim that he was overinsured.

The claims of error depend so largely on the facts, that a more detailed examination of them is necessary. The prosecution showed as follows: On or about 2:00 p. m. on the afternoon of April 22, 1931, respondent was seen entering the stairway from its outside entrance. He was wearing a druggist's coat and appeared to be clutching with both hands some bulky object hidden under his coat. The early part of the evening, he left the store in charge of a clerk. On or about 8:00 p. m. a customer called the clerk's attention to the fact that there was a noise above the store. The clerk ascribed the noise to rats running on the tin ceiling over the store. A few moments later respondent returned, and his attention was also called to the noise. He also stated that it was caused by rats. Very soon thereafter, the ceiling began to flake and became red hot, and it was discovered that the building was on fire. The fire department, just around the corner, was called and responded immediately.

The firemen found the steel door at the head of the stairway unlocked, but broke through the other doors locked with padlocks. They extinguished the fire very quickly with chemicals and a small amount of water. They chopped open the floor in the fire area which was confined to a small space. Thereupon, one of the firemen, who had been a carpenter, noticed a strong odor in the room. He testified positively that it was that of turpentine and called it to the attention of one of the other firemen. The latter stated that he thought that the odor was that of turpentine, but that it might have been that of pine boards. A fireman whose injured finger had been treated with turpentine by respondent passed through the room for a moment, but after the fire had been extinguished. The fire seemed to have traveled on the top of the joists and burned downwards. It followed the cracks between two boards of the floor. The steel door showed signs of having been forced open by an instrument. All these facts aroused the suspicion of the chief of the fire department, who communicated with the state fire marshal's office in Lansing, and Deputies Wall and Allen were directed to make an investigation.

On the evening of May 4th, Allen served a subpoena on respondent, and drove with him to the sheriff's office in the jail at Marshall, Mich. They, together with Wall, went into a small room adjoining the office, and respondent was interrogated for over three hours. He was questioned in detail as to his previous fires, financial condition, and all other facts that might even remotely bear upon the origin of the fire. After midnight Allen ordered the sheriff to lock up respondent who was conducted to a cell. He was fingerprinted and claims also to have received unpalatable food for breakfast the following morning. The investigation was again resumed at 8:00 a. m. Shortly thereafter, Allen claims respondent said: ‘I might as well tell you I set it,’ and told the whole story as appears in a confession; that, before typing it, Allen informed him of his constitutional rights; that the confession consisting of two sheets as typewritten by Allen was handed to respondent who read it and suggested several corrections which were made by Allen with pen and ink before it was signed. Although respondent was asked to raise his right hand, there was no jurat to the confession. Respondent's signature is witnessed by Wall, Allen, and the deputy sheriff, who was called in for that purpose. Respondent claims that it was represented to him, and that he believed he was signing a financial statement to satisfy the insurance companies; that he did not read the document which covered two pages. He states that Allen, while writing out the statement on the typewriter, asked frequent questions, all relating to plaintiff's financial condition. The confession states that respondent was first advised of his constitutional rights; that he was not obliged to answer any questions, and that such answers might be used against him; that there were no debts pressing very hard; that he wanted to relieve them as soon as possible, and that after the other fires he had held successful sales, and that he did want to sell his store. He then proceeded to tell how he first took an oblong tin quart can and filled it with turpentine from a large bottle; that then he removed some excelsior from a packing box, put it in a paper sack and secreted it under his coat, and with these articles went up the stairway the afternoon in question; that he found the steel door as well as the others unlocked; that after going to the inner rooms he placed the excelsior on the floor, poured turpentine on it, fastened a lighted candle to the floor with its drippings, locked the padlocks on both doors and closed the steel door. After making the...