People v. Martin

• Decision Date: 09 December 1970
• Docket Number: Docket No. 7697--8,No. 3,3
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ronald MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 744

184 N.W.2d 744

28 Mich.App. 633

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ronald MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7697--8.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Released for Publication March 30, 1971.

Richard D. Ward, Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Johnston, III, Chief Appellate Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and McGREGOR and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Charles Martin was charged with and convicted of first degree murder. ¹ The facts leading to this conviction evolve as follows: On March 2, 1969, during the course of a robbery, defendant shot and killed two attendants at a gas station located in the City of Walker in Kent County.

Following the shooting, defendant fled the scene of the crime and drove south out of Michigan. Pursuing a radio dispatch describing the crime, the Indiana State Police arrested defendant near LaPorte, Indiana. Shortly thereafter, two Michigan State Policemen arrived and had defendant sign a waiver of extradition and returned him to Michigan. A warrant was then prepared charging defendant with the double homicide.

The case proceeded to trial on April 14, 1969, and the sole issue before the court was the defense of insanity. The court, sitting without a jury, determined that defendant could distinguish right from wrong in accordance with the M'Naghten rule. Subsequently, the court found defendant guilty of first-degree murder.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the police failed to follow traditional extradition procedure in returning defendant to Michigan. While a waiver of a extradition pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 780.25 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1285(25)) requires execution before a judge, such procedure was superfluous in the present case. Many cases have upheld a state's jurisdiction when a criminal had been physically abducted into the jurisdiction. Ker v. Illinois (1886), 119 U.S. 436, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421; Frisbie v. Collins (1952), 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; People v. Mahler (1950), 329 Mich. 155, 45 N.W.2d 14. Abduction is not in issue here and the securing of a waiver, believed by all parties to be in good faith and Bona fide, removes any taint of prejudicial error.

The circuit court in Kent County properly had jurisdiction.

As a second issue for appeal, defendant contends that it was improper for the trial court to use the M'Naghten standard for insanity rather than the standard set forth in Durham v. United States (1954), 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430. This Court has consistently adopted the M'Naghten right-wrong rule plus 'irrestible impulse' as the insanity test. The present test was established in People v. Durfee (1886), 62 Mich. 487, 29 N.W. 109. Recent cases have consistently followed this theory. People v. Cole (1967), 8 Mich.App. 250, 154 N.W.2d 579; People v. Morris (1968), 10 Mich.App. 526, 159 N.W.2d 886; People v. Markham (1969), 19 Mich.App. 616, 173 N.W.2d 307. The trial court properly applied the test for insanity as followed in Michigan and a re-examination thereof does not appear in order.

Defendant also raises a number of issues...