People v. Clark, 67
| Decision Date | 21 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 67,67 |
| Citation | 363 Mich. 643,110 N.W.2d 638 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Constance Helen CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Capizzi, Valenti & Kwetcher, Detroit, for defendant-appellant. I. A. Capizzi, Detroit, of counsel.
Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Samuel Brezner, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the Perople.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant was convicted by a jury in the recorder's court for the city of Detroit of the first degree murder of her oldest child. The defense was insanity.
On June 8, 1957, shortly after 7:00 a. m., a woman telephoned the Detroit police department stating she had killed her children. Arrest followed and warrant issued charging first degree murder. Following examination she was bound over for trial. A sanity commission was requested and appointed by the court. On July 18, 1957, the commission filed its written report, the doctors disclosing they had examined the defendant on that date and were of the opinion the defendant was sane and able to stand trial. Following a formal hearing a week later, the court so ordered.
Trial by jury resulted, on November 1, 1957, in a verdict of first degree murder
On November 21, 1957, a motion for new trial was filed. This motion was continued from time to time by consent and court order. A supplemental and amended motion for new trial was filed September 25, 1959. To this motion were attached affidavits of Frederic Schultze, a Detroit Times reporter, and Dr. Austin Z. Howard, night superintendent of Receiving hospital of the city of Detroit.
The affidavit of Frederic Schultze sets forth that he was a newspaper reporter for the Detroit Times and that on June 8, 1957, at about 10:00 p. m., in his capacity as a reporter, he interviewed the defendant in the presence of Dr. Austin Z. Howard, night superintendent of Receiving hospital; that he requested Dr. Howard to be present at the interview because in addition to interviewing her he wished to take her photograph and wanted to be sure of her mental condition before taking the photograph. The affidavit further disclosed that prior to the interview he had information this woman was a registered nurse by profession; that he expected to see a person of reasonably clean and neat appearance; and that he was somewhat shocked ans surprised when he first approached her to find she was slovenly and disheveled in appearance. The affidavit also disclosed that he asked her some questions about the killing of her children; that she seemed dazed and bewildered and her answers were incoherent, not responsive and seemed to wander about aimlessly; and that when he asked defendant if she would permit him to take her photograph, she replied, 'Why are you interested in me and why do you want my picture; what is all this fuss about?' Mr. Schultze further stated that in his opinion defendant did not realize what had happened and was not aware of the seriousness of what she had done, and he concluded she definitely was not in her right mind; that he then talked with Dr Howard, who confirmed the opinion about her mental condition. Mr. Schultze left without taking her picture. He further stated that until about two weeks before the date of the affidavit, which was subscribed to on the 23rd day of September, 1959, he had not discussed the contents of the affidavit with anyone connected directly or indirectly with the respondent.
The affidavit of Dr. Austin Z. Howard stated similar facts with respect to Mr. Schultze approaching him and the fact he accompanied the reporter to the woman's bedside where Mr. Schultze attempted to question her. Dr. Howard stated that, based upon his observation of defendant at the time, he concluded she definitely did not realize what had happened, that she was mentally unbalanced, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barbara
...of the cause; and that the party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced it at trial." People v. Clark, 363 Mich. 643, 647, 110 N.W.2d 638, 640 (1961). Where such evidence, however, takes the form of witnesses' recantation testimony, it has been traditionally regard......
-
People v. Grissom
...v. Cress, 468 Mich. 678, 692, 664 N.W.2d 174 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 16. See, e.g., People v. Clark, 363 Mich. 643, 647, 110 N.W.2d 638 (1961); Canfield, 112 Mich. at 123, 70 N.W. 444. 17.Spray v. Ayotte, 161 Mich. 593, 595, 126 N.W. 630 (1910). 18. See, e.g., Luckhu......
-
People v. Russell
...The defendant could have raised the defense of insanity, Had he so elected. The facts here distinguish this case from People v. Clark (1961), 363 Mich. 643, 110 N.W.2d 638, in which a new trial was granted because the new evidence could not have been adduced until after the trial was comple......
-
People v. McSwain
...is newly discovered, which has long been held to be an insufficient basis for the granting of a new trial. See People v. Clark, 363 Mich. 643, 647, 110 N.W.2d 638 (1961); People v. Stricklin, 162 Mich.App. 623, 632, 413 N.W.2d 457 I would therefore reverse the trial court's order on the bas......