People v. Sykes, Docket No. 53048
| Decision Date | 01 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 53048 |
| Citation | 117 Mich.App. 117,323 N.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommie Lee SYKES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. 117 Mich.App. 117, 323 N.W.2d 617 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[117 MICHAPP 118] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., [117 MICHAPP 119] Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., James J. Gregart, Pros. Atty., and James A. Christopherson, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
DeVries & Lamb, P.C., Kalamazoo, for defendant on appeal.
Before BEASLEY, P. J., and CAVANAGH and BREIGHNER, * JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felonious assault, in violation of M.C.L. Sec. 750.82; M.S.A. Sec. 28.277. Defendant was fined, assessed attorney's fees and placed on probation for three years, the first 60 days of which were to be served in the Kalamazoo County Jail on a work release program. Defendant was released on a post-conviction bond and now appeals by right.
Defendant first argues that the prosecution did not offer sufficient proof to establish the corpus delicti of the offense of felonious assault. Defendant maintains that, absent the statements attributed to him, the prosecution's proofs at the close of its case failed to establish any evidence of criminal intent on the part of defendant.
Prior to the admission of an extrajudicial statement by a defendant, the prosecutor must establish the corpus delicti of the charged offense by introducing:
" * * * evidence from which the trier of fact may reasonably find that acts constituting all the essential elements of the offense have been committed and that someone's criminality was responsible for the commission of those acts." People v. Allen, 390 Mich. 383, 212 N.W.2d 21 (1973); adopting People v. Allen, 39 Mich.App. 483, 496, 197 N.W.2d 874 (1972) (Levin, J., dissenting).
[117 MICHAPP 120] In establishing the corpus delicti prior to the admission of a defendant's extrajudicial statement, the prosecutor is not required to submit proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence justifying a reasonable inference of culpability on each of the essential elements of the offense is sufficient. People v. Michael Johnson, 105 Mich.App. 498, 504, 307 N.W.2d 357 (1981).
The elements of felonious assault consist of: (1) an assault, and (2) the use of a deadly weapon. M.C.L. Sec. 750.82; M.S.A. Sec. 28.277. A simple criminal assault consists of either an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery. People v. Sanford, 402 Mich. 460, 479, 265 N.W.2d 1 (1978).
We find that the corpus delicti of felonious assault was in fact established. The corpus delicti is established when there has been a specific loss or injury which has been caused by the criminality of an individual. People v. Randall, 42 Mich.App. 187, 189, 201 N.W.2d 292 (1972). There was obviously an injury here, caused by a shotgun blast in the livingroom of defendant's home. The fact of the injury and the criminality of defendant were established by statements made by defendant over the phone to the police dispatcher. Defendant stated that he had shot his wife and that the shooting was the result of a family argument. Thus, evidence of an assault and the use of a deadly weapon was established.
Although as a general rule the corpus delicti cannot be established by the extrajudicial confession of the accused, People v. Barron, 381 Mich. 421, 163 N.W.2d 219 (1968), certain exceptions have been carved out of this general rule. When a defendant's statement is not simply an admission, [117 MICHAPP 121] but also falls within another exception to the hearsay rule "which gives an additional indication of truth" the statement is admissible to prove the corpus delicti. Randall, supra, 191, 201 N.W.2d 292. In People v. Meyer, 46 Mich.App. 357, 208 N.W.2d 230 (1973), this Court held that:
"Since an admission satisfying the spontaneous utterance exception provides a verifying indicator of truthfulness and reliability, it may be admitted for the purposes of establishing the corpus delicti." Id., 366, 208 N.W.2d 230.
We find that the statements made by the defendant over the phone to the police qualify as statements relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event. The call was made immediately after the shooting, and defendant was characterized by both dispatchers as being very excited. The statements related to the shooting event itself. Therefore, the trial court was correct in ruling that defendant's statements were excited utterances within the meaning of MRE 803(2). In light of this evidence, we find that the prosecutor established the corpus delicti of the crime of felonious assault.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the victim, defendant's wife, could not invoke the marital privilege. We agree.
The marital privilege statute, M.C.L. Sec. 600.2162; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2162, provides in pertinent part:
"A husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, except * * * where the cause of action grows out of a personal wrong or injury done by one to the other, * * * nor shall either, during the marriage or afterwards, without the [117 MICHAPP 122] consent of both, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage * * *."
As noted by this Court in People v. Wadkins, 101 Mich.App. 272, 300 N.W.2d 542 (1980), the spousal privilege statute incorporates two common law privileges. The "confidential communications privilege" applies to any confidential communications made during the marital relationship, regardless of whether the parties are married at the time of the suit. The "spousal privilege" prohibits testimony of one spouse concerning the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Love
...339 N.W.2d 493. 6 The Court of Appeals further held that the trial court could compel Mrs. Love to testify. People v. Sykes, 117 Mich.App. 117, 323 N.W.2d 617 (1982), which had reached a contrary conclusion, was rejected. The Court reasoned that a spouse is equivalent to any other witness w......
-
People v. Pohl
...People v. Ellis, 174 Mich.App. 139, 436 N.W.2d 383 (1988) (kidnapping and first-degree criminal sexual conduct); People v. Sykes, 117 Mich.App. 117, 323 N.W.2d 617 (1982) (felonious assault); People v. Thompson, 111 Mich.App. 324, 314 N.W.2d 606 (1981) (assault with intent to do great bodil......
-
People v. Love, Docket No. 60079
...charge where she was the victim and complainant. During oral argument before this Court, defendant relied upon People v. Sykes, 117 Mich.App. 117, 323 N.W.2d 617 (1982). In Sykes, a panel of this Court recognized that the spousal privilege statute excepts the testimonial privilege where the......
-
People v. Spencer
...to be answered by the trial court. See, i.e., People v. Robinson, 386 Mich. 551, 563, 194 N.W.2d 709 (1972); People v. Sykes, 117 Mich.App. 117, 323 N.W.2d 617 (1982). Where serious mistakes occur which may well have affected the outcome of the trial, a new trial may be warranted. This is s......