People v. Modelski

• Decision Date: 22 December 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 82600
• Citation: 164 Mich.App. 337,416 N.W.2d 708
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam Jan MODELSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 708

416 N.W.2d 708

164 Mich.App. 337

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam Jan MODELSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 82600.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 8, 1987.

Decided Nov. 3, 1987.

Released for Publication Dec. 22, 1987.

[164 MICHAPP 338] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., James J. Gregart, Pros. Atty., and Christopher K. Cooke, Asst. Pros. Atty., for people.

Milton J. Marovich, P.C. by Milton J. Marovich, Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellant.

Before HOOD, P.J., and BEASLEY and TOWNSEND, ^* JJ.

[164 MICHAPP 339] PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with the first-degree murder of his wife, Jeanne Modelski. Following a lengthy jury trial, defendant was convicted of manslaughter, M.C.L. Sec. 750.321; M.S.A. Sec. 28.553, and was sentenced to ten to fifteen years' imprisonment. He now appeals as of right, raising two issues: (1) that in admitting defendant's confession the trial judge erred in ruling that the prosecutor had established the corpus delicti of homicide; and (2) that the prosecutor's closing argument was so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial. Finding no merit to either argument, we affirm defendant's conviction.

Jeanne Modelski and defendant began cohabitating in October, 1977, and were married in December, 1979. By all accounts, the relationship was a stormy one. There were frequent and loud arguments, instances of violence and allegations by defendant of Jeanne's infidelity. The couple was living together in an apartment in Kalamazoo when Jeanne disappeared suddenly in late April, 1980. She has not been heard from since and a body has never been found.

Following Jeanne's disappearance, defendant telephoned her friends and relatives, asking whether they had seen her or heard from her. However, in the two years following Jeanne's disappearance, defendant confessed to friends, a paramour and to police that he killed Jeanne in a fit of rage following an argument with her.

In April, 1980, on the day after he killed Jeanne, defendant told a co-worker and a friend, Maurice Morrison, that he had shot his wife and disposed of her body in Indiana. In February, 1981, he told a paramour, Laurie Verdille, that he had killed his wife. She testified that defendant told her of the killing after she and he had seen a movie depicting a husband killing his wife. Defendant[164 MICHAPP 340] told her that he and Jeanne had been fighting, that both were drunk, and that he had removed his handgun from the closet and shot Jeanne once through the head while she was in the bathroom of their apartment. He could not recall where he had dumped the body. In May, 1982, while defendant was in the Army, stationed in Germany, he confessed that he killed his wife to his Army supervisor, David Meeks. Defendant and Meeks were drinking in a German discotheque and defendant was drunk when he told Meeks that he had shot his wife in the head with a revolver and then had driven across the state line and dumped her body in a wooded area.

Finally, when defendant was arrested on October 11, 1983, he made a full confession to police. He stated that he had shot Jeanne once through the head as she sat on the toilet. He caught her as she fell forward and laid her in the bathtub. Eventually, he removed the tarpaulin from his motorcycle, wrapped Jeanne's body and placed it in the back of his truck, drove to a wetland, wooded area in Indiana, and dumped it. Defendant initially accompanied police to Indiana to attempt to locate the body. However, the body was not found and on the advice of his brother, an attorney, defendant refused further cooperation with police.

At trial, the judge overruled each of defendant's objections that his confessions were inadmissible because the corpus delicti of homicide had not been established.

I

First, defendant claims that the trial judge erred in refusing to suppress his confession because the prosecutor failed to establish the corpus delicti of homicide.

[164 MICHAPP 341] The common law in Michigan, and many other jurisdictions, is that a defendant's confession is inadmissible unless the corpus delicti of the offense is first established. People v. Coapman, 326 Mich. 321, 40 N.W.2d 167 (1949); People v. Mondich, 234 Mich. 590, 593, 208 N.W. 675 (1926); People v. Skowronski, 61 Mich.App. 71, 232 N.W.2d 306 (1975). The Latin word "corpus" means body. "Delict" means wrong or injury. Thus, generally speaking, the corpus delicti of an offense is the body of the wrong or injury. People v. Allen, 390 Mich. 383, 212 N.W.2d 21 (1973). Consequently, the corpus delicti of a homicide is shown and a confession may be admitted when the prosecutor establishes that the victim is dead and that the death was the result of some criminal agency. People v. Williams, 422 Mich. 381, 373 N.W.2d 567 (1985).

The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to guard against a conviction for a criminal homicide when none has been committed. Despite some confusion to the contrary, the corpus delicti of a homicide offense can be established without locating the body of the deceased. Williams, supra. The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. People v. Neal, 83 Mich.App. 102, 268 N.W.2d 303 (1978); People v. Wise, 134 Mich.App. 82, 88, 351 N.W.2d 255 (1984).

Michigan law is not clear concerning the quantum of proof necessary to establish the corpus delicti of homicide. The prosecutor need not establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. Wise, supra. In Wise, this Court concluded that "the evidence adduced need only tend to show consistency with unlawfulness in causing the injury in question." 134 Mich.App. 88, 351 N.W.2d 255. This standard appears to be similar to the standard adopted by the California Court of Appeals in People v. Manson,[164 MICHAPP 342] 1 Cal.App.3d 1, 41, 139 Cal.Rptr. 275, 297 (1977), where the court noted:

"The preliminary proof of the corpus delicti need not be beyond a reasonable doubt but only a slight or prima facie showing is necessary."

A three-member dissent in People v. Kirby, 223 Mich. 440, 453-466, 194 N.W. 142 (1923), concluded that the corpus delicti was established where there was any evidence of the crime. However, cases thereafter have addressed the issue in terms of probabilities:

"Where the probabilities from the facts shown and the inferences therefrom indicate the corpus delicti, a voluntary confession may be introduced, although there may be some testimony to the contrary. The testimony, however, must be very strong to show the corpus delicti." [People v. Burlingame, 257 Mich. 252, 260, 241 N.W. 253 (1932) ].

See also People v. Preston, 299 Mich. 484, 493, 300 N.W. 853 (1941); People v. Zwierkowski, 368 Mich. 56, 60, 117 N.W.2d 179 (1962).

From the above authorities, we conclude that the corpus delicti of homicide is established when the prosecutor establishes by a preponderance of direct or circumstantial evidence that the victim is dead and that death was the result of some criminal agency.

In the instant case, the prosecutor established the corpus delicti of a homicide by showing that Jeanne could not be located and has not been heard from since her sudden disappearance and by showing that defendant had a motive to kill her, his deteriorating marriage and his claim of infidelity, and by showing that defendant's actions suggest that he had murdered Jeanne.

[164 MICHAPP 343] The evidence adduced at trial suggested that Jeanne had led a troubled life and was sometimes emotionally unstable and unpredictable. Born in 1959 and adopted by Milo and Edna Henkels at age 2 1/2, Jeanne had a history of running away from the Henkelses. She ran away at age thirteen and apparently never returned, although she maintained regular contact with the Henkelses up until her disappearance. In 1975, she went into the foster home provided by Marcia and Mahlon Kuder. She was pregnant at the time. She gave birth and relinquished custody of the baby. Although Jeanne was physically healthy, on two occasions, most recently in April, 1980, she required hospitalization following an overdose of prescription drugs.

Both defendant's mother and father testified that Jeanne had a history of leaving defendant. However, defendant's mother testified that Jeanne usually returned after one day and that she had never been gone more than three days.

Despite Jeanne's unstable upbringing, she established a close and consistent relationship with a number of people, none of whom have heard from her since April, 1980. The Henkelses testified that they normally heard from or saw Jeanne every two weeks or so. They last spoke with her on April 25 or 26, 1980. Similarly, the Kuders testified that they regularly heard from Jeanne until late April, 1980, when she disappeared suddenly. Patrice Reagan, the Kuders' daughter, enjoyed a sister-like relationship with Jeanne. After Reagan moved to Canada, she and Jeanne kept in touch by telephone and regular correspondence. Shortly before Jeanne's disappearance, they discussed a proposed visit of Jeanne's to Reagan's home. Reagan has not heard from Jeanne since then.

There was also substantial testimony concerning efforts to locate Jeanne. The prosecutor presented [164 MICHAPP 344] evidence that Jeanne had not filed either federal or state tax returns since 1980. Similarly, according to the social security records, there was no history of earnings since 1980. Nor had a driver's license in the victim's name been issued in any state or the District of Columbia. There was no credit history for the victim after 1979, nor was there a passport applied for or approved in the name of the victim.

In addition to establishing Jeanne's sudden disappearance and the fact that she could not be located, the prosecutor also established that defendant had a motive for killing Jeanne. At the time of Jeanne's disappearance, her marriage with defenda...