People v. Lane
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Writing for the Court | COOLEY, J. |
| Citation | 13 N.W. 622,49 Mich. 340 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LANE. |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1882 |
13 N.W. 622
49 Mich. 340
PEOPLE
v.
LANE.
Supreme Court of Michigan
October 20, 1882
In a prosecution for an attempt to murder, the respondent's unsupported confession is not sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti.
Exceptions from Wayne.
[49 Mich. 341] John G. Hawley, for respondent.
COOLEY, J.
The respondent was convicted of an attempt to murder one Allen by administering morphine to him. The evidence that any such offense was committed was the respondent's admission. The medical and other evidence in the case tended very strongly to show that the admission was unfounded. The defendant on the trial explained his story by saying that he invented it to get up a sensation by way of advertisement for a firm of sensational doctors. The explanation was extraordinary, but on the evidence it is more credible than the confession on which respondent was convicted.
An unsupported confession should not be received as sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti. People v. Hennessy, 15 Wend. 147; Stingfellon v. State, 26 Miss. 157; State v. Guild, 5 Halsted, 163. The respondent on the case submitted to the jury was entitled to an acquittal, and the conviction must be set aside and a discharge ordered.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen, Docket No. 10157
...principles: 'An unsupported confession should not be received as sufficient evidence of the Corpus delicti.' 2 People v. Lane (1882), 49 Mich. 340, 341, 13 N.W. 622. The prosecution was supplied with a number of 'confessions' in the present case due to defendant's tendency to inform his fri......
-
State v. Knowles
...... State v. Stearns, 42 P. 615; State v. Mecham, 33 So. 983; State v. Roubbs, 26 Am. St. 179; Whitney v. State, 73 N.W. 696; People v. Carter, 81 N.W. 924; 73 Md. 447. (b) It does not appear,. either in the indictment or in the proof, as to the place. where and the time when ... v. State, 32 Miss. 347; Williams v. People, 101. Ill. 382; Johnson v. State, 59 Ala. 37; State v. Knowles, 48 Iowa 598; People v. Lane, 49 Mich. 340; Mose v. State, 36 Ala. 211; United States. v. Boese, 46 F. 917; Butler v. Commonwealth, 2. Duvall 435; Commonwealth v. ......
-
People v. Licavoli, Motion No. 449.
...a rule of law by judicial determination in this state that an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession is not sufficient. People v. Lane, 49 Mich. 340, 13 N. W. 622;People v. Ranney, 153 Mich. 293, 116 N. W. 999, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 443. There are many other decisions of like character. In ......
-
People v. Kirby, 137.
...the case submitted to the jury was entitled to an acquittal, and the conviction must be set aside and a discharge ordered.’ People v. Lane, 49 Mich. 340, 13 N. W. 622. In People v. Swetland, 77 Mich. 53, 43 N. W. 779, Justice Morse, speaking for the court, said: ‘It is claimed that, until t......