People v. Franszkiewicz

Citation4 N.W.2d 500,302 Mich. 144
Decision Date10 June 1942
Docket NumberNo. 91.,91.
PartiesPEOPLE v. FRANSZKIEWICZ.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Victoria Franszkiewicz was convicted of murder in the first degree, and she appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Menominee County; Frank A. Bell, judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

George Barstow, of Menominee (Ditchburne & Lounsbury, of Chicago, Ill., and Doyle & Doyle, of Menominee, of counsel), for appellant.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund Sheperd, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Anuta, Pros. Atty., of Menominee, for the People.

NORTH, Justice.

Defendant appeals her conviction for the murder of her husband, Romold Franszkiewicz, whose death occurred July 21, 1940. She married him in 1935. Both were advanced in years and both had been married before. They lived on a farm in Nadeau township, Menominee county.

At the time of deceased's death there seems to have been no suspicion of foul play. No inquest was ordered; and the official certificate gave heart trouble as the cause of death. However, on January 18, 1941, a petition was filed before a justice of the peace in Menominee for an order providing for the disinterment of the remains of deceased. The justice entered such an order on the same day. There was disinterment and an autopsy was performed. Dr. K. C. Kerwell removed the heart, part of the liver, spleen, kidneys, stomach and part of the intestines. These were delivered by a deputy sheriff to Drs. Weller and Emerson at University Hospital at Ann Arbor for analysis. Testimony was given by Dr. Emerson that enough arsenic was found in the body of deceased to be fatal, ‘about four times the average lethal or killing dose.’

It appears deceased suffered from diarrhea as early as May 1940, and that this condition may be caused by arsenic. He consulted a doctor on July 10, 1940. But he seemed to undergo his most intense suffering shortly prior to his death. The day before his death he was taken to another doctor; and to still another doctor on the day of his death.

There was evidence as to motive. There was testimony that defendant in certain instances exhibited intense dislike for deceased; and that she wanted her son by her first husband to live with her but that deceased objected. The prosecution also charged that she might have been motivated by a desire to acquire deceased's farm and that she endeavored, though unsuccessfully, to get some insurance on deceased's life. Also, it was shown that defendant had bought some rat poison about a year and a half before deceased's death; and similar poison showed arsenic on analysis. A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and she was sentenced to solitary confinement at hard labor for life.

Defendant charges the trial court committed some eight errors, on which she bases this appeal. First, it is contended that no corpus delicti was proved. The objection here is based chiefly on two grounds. The first is that it was not shown the arsenic did not come into decedent's system through some innocent means, as by the embalming fluid. The second is that the examining toxicologist, Dr. Emerson, only examined parts of some of the vital organs and then proceeded by multiplication to compute the amount of arsenic in the entire organ; that he thus got his final total of arsenic by assuming it was evenly distributed. As to the first argument, People v. Gerndt, 244 Mich. 622, at page 632, 222 N.W. 185, at page 189, holds: ‘The mere possibility that the deceased may have come to her death otherwise than in the manner charged in the information, especially since such suggested possibility is not supported by any proof in the case, is not sufficient to justify setting aside the verdict of the jury, notwithstanding the same was based in part on circumstantial evidence.’

Also, in this case, the fact there was enough arsenic found to be fatal to four persons negatives the idea the disorder was chronic rather than acute. The pathologist and toxicologist both testified to indications of breakdowns of some of the vital organs and discounted the contention that the effect in the present case might have arisen from chronic, cumulative poisoning. Dr. Weller also testified his examination showed heart disease did not cause the death. If defendant wished to have more testimony in regard to the content of the embalming fluid, she should have procured it in her own behalf. Dr. Emerson testified that the arsenic he found could not have come from embalming fluid.

As to the charge that the computation of the total amount of arsenic was based on assumption and inference, People v. Kuhn, 232 Mich. 310, 205 N.W. 188, holds that the method used in the instant case is proper. Dr. Emerson testified each organ contains an even distribution. The Gerndt case, supra, also holds that the possession by defendant of the poison need not be shown positively. It was not fatal to the prosecution's case that instead of showing recent possession of arsenic, the testimony only disclosed defendant bought the rat poison some 18 months before the time of the alleged crime. This circumstance only went to the weight of the evidence. The condition of deceased before he died, his seeming to suffer from pain in the stomach, pallor, etc., indicated symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning. The testimony was ample to make a case for the jury's determination.

The second charge of error relied on by defendant is that the autopsy and disinterment of deceased failed to follow statutory direction and so the evidence gained thereby was inadmissible. Statutes provide for coroners holding inquests and provide for disinterment of bodies (Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 17414, 17417; Stat.Ann. §§ 28.1180, 28.1183) and for justices of the peace doing so in some instances (Comp.Laws 1929, § 17403; Stat.Ann. § 28.1169). In the present case there was a complaint filed with a justice of the peace of Menominee, Michigan. The latter ordered the sheriff to disinter the body so an inquest might be held. No such inquest appears to have been held. Instead, the prosecuting attorney ordered the sexton of the cemetery to disinter the body and deliver it to the parlors of the funeral director who had embalmed the body. An autopsy was then conducted by a physician who removed certain organs and put them in sealed jars. These were taken to University Hospital at Ann Arbor for analysis. The question is whether the results of analysis of the organs so obtained are admissible.

There seem to be no Michigan cases on this point. However, the question has come up in other jurisdictions. In Commonwealth v. Grether, 204 Pa. 203, 53 A. 753, the Pennsylvania supreme court held: ‘The third, fourth, and fifth [assignments of error] * * * relate to the exhumation and examination of the body of the deceased, alleged to have been unlawful because not conducted by the coroner, or under his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Wise
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • July 12, 1984
    ...Court reversed, ruling that a prosecutor may not "respond" to a proper argument with an improper one. See also People v. Franszkiewicz, 302 Mich. 144, 152-153, 4 N.W.2d 500 (1942). (3) Sympathy for the victim. During the prosecutor's first closing argument, he "You are going to believe [the......
  • People v. Bowyer
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • August 6, 1981
    ...testimony of a particular witness to believe. People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471, 504, 40 N.W.2d 689 (1950), People v. Franszkiewicz, 302 Mich. 144, 153-154, 4 N.W.2d 500 (1942), People v. English, 302 Mich. 463, 469, 4 N.W.2d 727 (1942), People v. Miceli, 35 Mich.App. 176, 178, 192 N.W.2d 33......
  • State v. Woolford, KCD28313
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 29, 1976
    ...which have held that evidence of an autopsy is not inadmissible because the autopsy was illegal or unauthorized. People v. Franszkiewicz, 302 Mich. 144, 4 N.W.2d 500 (1942); State v. Ruggiero, 93 R.I. 241, 174 A.2d 555 (1961). That issue need not be decided, for defendant has failed to pres......
  • People v. Hancock
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 9, 1950
    ...contradict themselves and each other, while testifying on the trial, their credibility is for the jury to determine. People v. Franszkiewicz, 302 Mich. 144, 4 N.W.2d 500. The central figure and principal witness relied upon by the prosecution was Hemans, who according to his own testimony w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT