People v. Parmelee
| Decision Date | 06 April 1897 |
| Citation | 112 Mich. 291,70 N.W. 577 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PARMELEE. |
Error to circuit court, Grand Traverse county; Roscoe L. Corbett Judge.
Woodruff Parmelee was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed. Turner & Gates and Odell Chapman, for appellant.
Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and W. H. Foster, Pros. Atty., for the People.
GRANT J. (after stating the facts).
1. The first and principal point discussed by the respondent's counsel is that there was no proof of the corpus delicti. Two physicians, in behalf of the prosecution, made the post mortem examination, and testified that, in their opinion, the girl died suddenly, from strangulation, caused by pressure upon the throat, and that this injury could not have been inflicted by herself. These physicians testified that they had never had a case of strangulation before. They also testified that some of the symptoms resulting from strangulation would be the same as those resulting from death from poison by laudanum. The contents of the stomach were sent to an expert chemist at the University of Michigan for analysis, and he testified that no poison was found in the contents. He also testified that the poison might be found in the urine, brain, liver, and kidneys. No examination was made of these to determine whether they contained any poison. There might be some force in the contention in behalf of the respondent if there were no other evidence except the absence of poison in the stomach. But, in addition to the marks of violence upon the body, there is also evidence that a cry was heard in the woods while she was there; that there was an indentation in the ground under her head; that limbs were broken which were on the ground underneath the head, and that it required hard pressure to break them that some hairs were found upon the twig of a bush near the head of the body, which were claimed to be those of the girl, and also a hair upon the ground, which was claimed to be that of the respondent. These were introduced in evidence. There was also evidence to show that she and the respondent were together on the day before, and in the forenoon of the day of the alleged murder. In view of the testimony of the physicians as to the cause of death, the marks of force upon the body, and other circumstances, we think there was ample proof of the corpus delicti, and this point was properly left to the jury.
2. The theory that Mr. Merrill was the perpetrator of the crime is without any foundation. He was at work in a field adjoining the woods, and another man, who was a witness, was working near by. He had known the girl but two or three weeks, and there is no evidence of any intimacy between them. Nor is there any evidence to indicate that he was in the woods on the afternoon in question. There is nothing upon the record to indicate that any duty rested upon the prosecution to attempt to find Merrill, or produce him as a witness. He left on the Saturday following the murder, and went to Saginaw. Neither party seemed to consider it of any importance to find him.
3. Error is assigned upon the alleged introduction of testimony given by the respondent before the coroner at the inquest. The respondent was subp naed as a witness, and testified at the inquest. His counsel do not, in their brief, cite either the...
To continue reading
Request your trial