People v. Porter

Decision Date10 December 1934
Docket NumberNo. 125.,125.
Citation257 N.W. 705,269 Mich. 284
PartiesPEOPLE v. PORTER.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Winifred Porter was convicted of arson, and she appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Clapperton & Owen, of Grand Rapids (Irving H. Smith, of Grand Rapids, of counsel), for appellant.

Bartel J. Jonkman, Pros. Atty., and Menso R. Bolt, Asst. Pros. Atty, both of Grand Rapids, for the People.

FEAD, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of arson, in burning (a) a dwelling house, and (b) personal property with intent to defraud an insurance company.

Her principal claim is that both at the examination and trial the people failed to prove the corpus delicti apart from her own statements, and that her own statements were inadmissible for that purpose. She saved the point for review by proper objections and motions.

The fire occurred July 19, 1933, a bright hot day, with strong west wind, at defendant's home. The house faced east, had four rooms, kitchen, front room, two bedrooms, and an attic, but no stairs. It was rather dilapidated and had cracks in it which permitted free ventilation of the attic. It was not insured. Twenty-five feet from it was a small one-car garage. Defendant had furniture for a seven or eight room house before she married Porter, and he had some furniture. Much of it was stored in a room in the home, which belonged to Porter's mother's estate. Defendant and her husband had lived in the house about fourteen months. It was not in the city, but there were a store and gas station and several neighbors within a half mile, one only twenty rods away.

At the examination, defendant's brother, Milton Wecker, testified that about 9 o'clock in the morning he called on her, went into the garage, and did not notice any furniture, tub of fruit jars or dishes, floor lamp, or bird cage standard. At the trial he said he saw some furniture and a bird cage in the garage.

Late in the morning defendant was seen going south to a store at a normal pace and with her dog. She returned about noon with a loaf of bread and a small parcel. About a half hour later she went south again with her dog and at a normal walk. When she reached Leonard road, a paved street, she increased her pace and looked back toward the house several times. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon she reached her mother's house five miles away and said either that her house was burning down or it was full of smoke.

About a half hour after defendant left home, neighbors saw smoke and went to the house. Flames were coming through the front, above the porch. All windows and doors were closed. The back door was locked. Men broke in and carried out an oil stove, gas stove, and washstand. There was fire in the front room. One said it was ‘a mass of blaze coming from the floor up’; another saw flames on the east wall and said it looked all ablaze. Another said the fire seemed to be all over the east wall inside. They saw no furniture in the front room except a heating stove. When the house burned to the ground only the stove and two iron beds were found in the débris. After the fire some of them looked into the garage and saw it was full of furniture, a breakfast table and chairs, floor lamp, bird cage standard, clothes of defendant and her husband, tub of fruits in jars, tub of dishes, card table, loaf of bread and a lemon, big armchair, bookrack, bedding, hall tree with clothes on it, and pots and pans.

Defendant's theory was that the fire caught in the attic from the chimney. There was disputein the testimony whether the chimney was cracked before the fire. None of the witnesses who arrived first saw any fire close to the stove or chimney. There was testimony that, because of the west wind, fire from the chimney would likely catch in the east end of the house. The physical evidence indicates that the fire caught from the chimney in the attic or was set in the front room, went up through the ceiling and broke out of the house above the porch.

At the trial defendant testified that she took some of the furniture to the garage to paint or varnish it; she was cleaning house and took other furniture and bedding and clothes into the yard; the stove in the front room had an accumulation of paper and she lighted it; the chimney burned out; about 11 o'clock she was hungry, went down to the store for bread and milk; as she stepped outdoors soot was flying all over; when she came back the house was full of smoke; she became excited, took dishes, canned fruit, and some of the furniture and the clothes off the line and put them in the garage; the smoke was on the ceiling, working its way down; she decided to go for help; she went to Leonard street, passing a neighbor's house on the way; she hailed an automobile and asked for assistance, another car stopped, and the driver questioned her, and both cars went on; she was nervous and excited and kept on walking, stopped once to telephone a neighbor of her mother's and finally reached her mother's home and told her stepfather her house was full of smoke; she closed the back door when she left and thought she could get quicker help from cars on the highway than from neighbors.

The day after the fire defendant notified the insurance agent, who called on her and requested her to make a list of goods. She gave the clerk the list of articles, afterwards appraised by herself and the agent at about $1,800. However, when the agent went over the list with her she voluntarily mentioned articles upon which she did not make claim because they had been saved.

At the examination a deputy sheriff testified to statements made by defendant to him to the effect that she had been cleaning house; had lighted papers which had accumulated in the stove in the front room; when she came back from the store she discovered a fire in the attic and got excited, went out to the road, stopped a car, and told the driver there was a fire at the home, but no attention was paid to her; so she walked to her mother's house; she thought the fire was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • People v. Allen, Docket No. 10157
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 27 Marzo 1972
    ...N.W.2d 219, 220 (1968).'If the fact admitted necessarily amounts to a confession of guilt, it is a confession.' People v. Porter, 269 Mich. 284, 290, 257 N.W. 705, 707 (1934).24 See People v. Morrin, Supra, 31 Mich.App. p. 337, 187 N.W.2d 434.The defendant was not prejudiced in his defense ......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 4 Septiembre 1985
    ...also argues that the corpus delicti rule only applies to extrajudicial confessions, rather than admissions. See People v. Porter, 269 Mich 284, 289-290, 257 N.W. 705 (1934). 5 Assuming that this is an accurate statement of the law, we conclude that defendant's statement that he waited until......
  • People v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 28 Enero 1982
    ...Sparks, 393 Mich. 135, 224 N.W.2d 481 (1974). However, in Michigan, the corpus delicti rule is limited to confessions. People v. Porter, 269 Mich. 284, 257 N.W. 705 (1934). " * * * The cases do not purport to render inadmissible statements of fact by the accused which do not amount to a con......
  • People v. Gilbert, Docket No. 15536
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 27 Agosto 1974
    ...to show guilt, it is not a confession, but an admission, and, therefore, is not within the range of cases cited.' People v. Porter, 269 Mich. 284, 290, 257 N.W. 705, 707 (1934). Much of what was told by the accused to both the Michigan and Wisconsin police were simple statements of fact far......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT