People v. Kangas, 94
| Decision Date | 19 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 94,94 |
| Citation | 113 N.W.2d 865,366 Mich. 201 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Carl W. KANGAS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Clem H. Block, Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Burton A. Hines, Pros. Atty., Cadillac, for appellee.
Before the Entire Bench, except ADAMS, J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury in the Wexford county circuit court of a charge of manslaughter. Motion for new trial was denied, and application for leave to appeal was granted by this Court.
Defendant was originally charged with second degree murder. A motion to dismiss the murder charge was made and, at the conclusion of the People's proofs, the trial judge granted the motion.
The charge grew out of the following factual situation:
On December 18, 1959, the defendant drove to the home of his estranged wife on the outskirts of Cadillac in a car belonging to a woman friend. It was around 5 o'clock in the afternoon and his purpose was to feed his dogs. At this time his wife arrived home from work accompanied by his daughter Joann. Mrs. Kangas parked her car so as to block her husband's exit. When he was ready to leave the premises he asked Mrs. Kangas, who was in the kitchen preparing food, to move her car. She did not immediately come out of the house and defendant proceeded to her car to determine if she had left the keys in it, but not finding them he returned to the car he was driving. His wife came out of the house with a paring knife and approached the rear tire on the driver's side of the car her husband was driving. Defendant got out of his car and asked her what she was doing. His wife arose from a squatting position and, holding the knife in front of her, moved toward defendant and said, 'I'll show you, you and your damn car.'
There is a sharp conflict in the testimony as to what followed. Defendant contends he swung his hand in a manner so as to knock the knife out of his wife's hand. The daughter Joann testified she saw his hand open and he struck her mother on the side of the face. Either as a result of the force of the blow, or partially from the blow and partially because of ice that covered the yard, Mrs. Kangas fell, landing on the back of her head. Defendant, with the assistance of his daughter, carried his wife into the house and called an ambulance to take her to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
When Mrs. Kangas was taken to the funeral parlor it was discovered her upper denture was broken in 3 pieces--one large piece of the upper right portion of the denture which represented about two-thirds of her plate, and 2 smaller pieces of about the same size which represented the remainder of her plate.
Defendant was questioned and released by the State police. On December 22, 1959, an inquest was ordered. On December 28, 1959, a coroner's jury found no evidence on which they could hold Mr. Kangas and no charges were placed against him. Two doctors testified at the inquest that they had performed an autopsy.
On January 8, 1960, the body of Mrs. Kangas was exhumed and an examination made by Dr. Black, a pathologist from Lansing. Dr. Black attempted to remove the large piece of denture from Mrs. Kangas' mouth, but was unable to do so. She was again interred.
On January 13, 1960, Mr. Kangas was arrested for the second degree murder of his wife. After the granting of the motion to strike the second degree murder charge, the trial proceeded on a manslaughter charge.
On appeal defendant raises the following alleged errors:
1) The trial court erred in authorizing instructions to the jury through a sheriff after the jury had requested instructions of the sheriff in jury chambers.
2) The trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of manslaughter where the undisputed evidence showed that death occurred when Mrs. Kangas slipped and fell on the ice after advancing toward her husband with a knife, and her husband, in order to protect himself, attempted to knock the knife out of her hand by striking the hand in which she held the knife, causing her to slip.
3) The trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial where it developed that the force of the blow required to break dentures was of the utmost importance in the trial of the case, and where the prosecuting attorney during the time intervening between the death of Mrs. Kangas and the trial broke parts of an upper dental plate of Mrs. Kangas without explaining to the jury how the breakage occurred, and these facts were made known to the trial judge on the motion for new trial.
4) The trial court erred in determining that no prejudicial error occurred from the fact the officer in charge of the jury throughout the trial drove one of the jurors to and from court.
5) The trial court erred in allowing the jury to weight testimony in considering their verdict, where the only evidence was opinion evidence of a doctor performing an autopsy after getting all of his information from law enforcement officers and without visiting the scene of the alleged crime, where some of the evidence on which he based his opinion was to the effect Mrs. Kangas had been hit by a crowbar, and where the doctor was asked no hypothetical questions based on the evidence as submitted in court.
The facts with reference to the first alleged error are as follows:
During the course of the deliberations, there was a knock on the jury room door and the sheriff went into the jury room. Some conversation occurred, after which the sheriff came out and asked to see the trial judge. The sheriff talked with the trial judge in private. In his opinion on motion for new trial, the judge stated he had discussed the matter with both counsel and together they researched the point in question. Later the judge, out of hearing of counsel, instructed the sheriff to return to the jury room, where he talked with the jurors. Shortly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushing v. Wayne County
...of counsel. People v. Cain, 409 Mich. 858, 294 N.W.2d 692 (1980), rev'g 94 Mich.App. 644, 288 N.W.2d 465 (1980); People v. Kangas, 366 Mich. 201, 113 N.W.2d 865 (1962); People v. Washington, 119 Mich.App. 373, 375, 326 N.W.2d 514 (1982). In Cain, supra, the bailiff took to the judge a note ......
-
Hickey v. Zezulka
...rev'g 94 Mich.App. 644, 288 N.W.2d 465 (1980); Zaitzeff v. Raschke, 387 Mich. 577, 579, 198 N.W.2d 309 (1972); People v. Kangas, 366 Mich. 201, 206-207, 113 N.W.2d 865 (1962). A party need not establish prejudice before a new trial is granted. People v. Lyons, 164 Mich.App. 307, 310, 416 N.......
-
People v. France
...trial in a case in which the trial judge had directed the sheriff to give oral instructions to a deliberating jury. People v. Kangas, 366 Mich. 201, 113 N.W.2d 865 (1962). Citing Knapp and Churchill, the Court ordered the new trial without separately discussing the question whether there wa......
-
Mason v. Lovins
...to the jury at the close of the instructions and could not possibly prejudice any of the parties in any way.' In People v. Kangas (1962), 366 Mich. 201, 113 N.W.2d 865, the Michigan Supreme Court condemned communications with the jury after its retirement for deliberation in the absence of ......