People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 21 June 1965
• Docket Number: 251,Nos. 250,No. 3,s. 250,3
• Citation: People v. Jackson, 135 N.W.2d 557, 1 Mich.App. 207 (Mich. App. 1965)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfred JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gladys JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 557

135 N.W.2d 557

1 Mich.App. 207

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfred JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gladys JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Cal. Nos. 250, 251.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

June 21, 1965.

Kenneth O. Doyle, Doyle & Doyle, Menominee, for appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Russell W. Bradley, Pros. Atty., Menominee, for appellee.

Before HOLBROOK, P. J., and FITZGERALD and GILLIS, JJ.

GILLIS, Judge.

Defendants, Wilfred and Gladys Jackson, were convicted in a non-jury trial of committing the crime of manslaughter* in the death of their eight month old daughter.

December 11, 1962, the defendants had an argument in their home in Harris, Michigan, and Gladys Jackson in an attempt to keep her husband from leaving the house threatened to place their daughter behind the car on the driveway. (Defendant Gladys Jackson, in her formal written statement, said that she had done this on a prior occasion and thereby induced her husband to remain home.) As Wilfred Jackson left the house his wife followed him with the baby in her arms and after he entered the automobile she either placed or threw the baby behind the wheels of the car. The defendant husband opened the car door and observed the baby as he was backing out. He continued out the driveway after running over the infant's head and drove a short distance away before returning to the house. He picked up his wife, who carried the infant, and drove to the office of Dr. Jenke in Bark River, Michigan.

On their way to the doctor's office the car developed a flat tire. The defendants stopped at the home of Mr. and Mrs. LaPalm for help in changing the tire. The defendants carried on a brief conversation with the LaPalms while Mr. LaPalm was changing the tire. Defendant Wilfred Jackson told Mr. and Mrs. LaPalm that he had run over the baby and had killed her. After the tire was changed the defendants proceeded to the office of Dr. Jenke.

The doctor, who had treated the child on a prior occasion for whooping cough, examined the baby and pronounced her dead. The doctor called he Delta county sheriff's department which sent out Deputy Sheriff Joseph Hillewared and a call apparently went out to the Menominee county sheriff's department and Deputy Sheriff Earl Kell responded. He arrived a short while before Deputy Hillewaerd. Both defendants talked with the two deputies a few minutes later while sitting in the automobile of Deputy Kell.

Defendant Gladys Jackson made a formal signed statement the following day in which she stated that she had placed the baby on the ground behind the car after her husband had advised her that he was leaving the house.

Defendant Wilfred Jackson made a formal signed statement two days later in which he stated that he saw his wife take the baby out of the crib and follow him out of the house. 'She went to the back of the car with the baby in her arms. I didn't think she was going to do it. The motor was running and the car was in motion. I saw her when she tossed the baby. I felt the bump when I hit. It was too late to stop then so I kept on going.'

The parties stipulated that the transcript of the testimony returned and filed by the examining magistrate constituted the whole testimony to be adduced at the trial and therefore there were no witnesses called by either side at the trial.

The questions before this Court are whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the examining magistrate to bind defendants over for trial, and whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the trial court to find either or both defendants guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

Under the circumstances of this case an affirmative answer to the second question, of necessity, will control the first since the trial...