People v. Conklin

• Citation: 118 Mich.App. 90,324 N.W.2d 537
• Decision Date: 07 October 1982
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48904
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John William CONKLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 537

324 N.W.2d 537

118 Mich.App. 90

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John William CONKLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 48904.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 11, 1982.

Decided July 19, 1982.

Released for Publication Oct. 7, 1982.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Michael W. LaBeau, Pros. Atty., and William D. Bond, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Rolf E. Berg, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant on rehearing.

Before KELLY, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

V. J. BRENNAN, Judge.

We granted the People's application for rehearing in this cause to determine whether our original opinion incorrectly concluded that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, independent of the defendant's confession, to support defendant's first-degree murder conviction.

In the original opinion in this matter, the majority reversed the defendant's first-degree murder conviction and remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment of conviction on the reduced charge of second-degree murder with an option afforded the prosecutor to retry defendant for first-degree murder. I dissented because I was convinced that there were enough facts for the trial court, sitting as the finder of fact, to conclude that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation independent of the defendant's confession.

After considering the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation aliunde the defendant's confession, we reverse our original opinion and reinstate defendant's first-degree murder conviction.

It is the well accepted general rule that the corpus delicti of a crime must be established by evidence other than a confession or admission of the accused. In order to establish the corpus delicti of a crime, the prosecution must introduce evidence from which a trier of fact reasonably may find that acts constituting all the essential elements of the crime have been committed and that someone's criminality was responsible for the commission of those acts. People v. Hamp, 110 Mich.App. 92, 96, 312 N.W.2d 175 (1981). The corpus delicti does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Premeditation and deliberation characterize a thought process undisturbed by hot blood. People v. Michael Johnson, 105 Mich.App. 498, 505, 307 N.W.2d 357 (1981). To find premeditation and deliberation, there must be a lapse of time between the initial homicidal intent and ultimate action which would be long enough to afford a reasonable man time to subject the nature of his response to a "second look". People v. Tilley, 405 Mich. 38, 45, 273 N.W.2d 471 (1979). A sufficient time lapse to provide an opportunity for a "second look" may be merely seconds, or minutes, or hours, or more, dependent on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the killing. People v. Meier, 47 Mich.App. 179, 191-192, 209 N.W.2d 311 (1973).

Evidence of the following can indicate that the defendant had an opportunity for a "second look":

1. A prior relationship tending to show motive;

2. A murder weapon acquired and positioned in preparation for homicide;

3. Evidence in the record supporting the inference that the killer transported the victim to a secluded location for illicit or criminal purpose;

4. Circumstances surrounding the killing suggesting premeditation and deliberation; and

5. Organized conduct subsequent to the killing suggesting the existence of a plan.

These factors are not exclusive.

Further, premeditation and deliberation need not be established by direct evidence. The appropriate state of mind may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances but the inferences must have support in the record and cannot be arrived at by mere speculation. People v. O'Brien, 89 Mich.App. 704, 710, 282 N.W.2d 190 (1979).

Aside from defendant's confession, the evidence established that the victim's body was found by a detective in a cornfield. The body was clad only in a pair of jeans. The detective testified as to the condition of the body:

"The face * * * appeared to be smashed, and * * * it was very badly decomposed. The skull was exposed, and we could see that there was a section of the skull that had been knocked out.

* * *

* * *

"[W]hen we found the body, the * * * skull was completely exposed. Ah the skin had been beaten off the skull, and--and the skull laying there--there was quite a large hole knocked out of the skull."

A tire iron with the victim's shirt wrapped around it was lying about six inches from the victim's head. Hair and blood found on the tire iron were consistent with the victim's hair and blood.

The victim's car was discovered in a parking lot in the city of Monroe the day before the body was found. It "was covered with cornstalks, * * * leaves, grain, vines and mud, and appeared to have been driven through a cornfield or some other type of field". Inside the vehicle was a pair of ladies' shoes, a sock, several 8-track tapes, a pillow and a purse. The purse had been opened and its contents were scattered about the car. Also, small amounts of dried human blood were found inside the vehicle by the headrest on the front passenger side seat, the rearview mirror, the steering wheel and the center of the front seat.

The victim's mother testified that the last time that she saw the victim was one week before the body was found. The victim was wearing the shirt found wrapped around the tire iron.

A pathologist testified that there was "a large piece or pieces of bone broken out of the skull" and that the edges were "beveled", making it "quite apparent that there was an external blow probably with a blunt instrument" such as "a tire iron or club of some type." The "large defect" in the victim's skull was on the right, front side, near the forehead and temple, and was the "only evidence of violence" to the victim's body. Further, the pathologist testified that, given the nature of the fractures, it...