Case ID: mich_49/html/0340-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cooley, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People v. William Lane.
    
      Confessions.
    
    In a prosecution for an attempt to murder, the respondent’s unsupported confession is not sufficient evidence of the corpas delicti.
    
    Exceptions before judgment from Wayne.
    Submitted October 19.
    Decided October 20.
    
      Information for attempt to kill and murder. Respondent was convicted.
    Conviction set aside and prisoner discharged.
    Attorney General Jacob J. Van Riper for the People.
    
      John Cx. Hawley for respondent.
    A prisoner ought not to be convicted on his extra-judicial confessions without proof ali/unde of the corpus delicti: 1 Greenl. Ev. § 217 ; Rosc. Crim. Ev. 39, n. 1; State s. Turner 19 Ia. 144; State v. Scott 39 Mo. 424; Jenkins v. State 41 Miss. 582: Priest v. State 10 Neb. 393 ; Johnson v. State 59 Ala. 37; State v. Knowles 48 Ia. 598 ; Terr. v. McClin 1 Montana 394 ; Nesbit v. State 43 Ga. 239 ; Bergen s. People 17 Ill. 426; People v. Rulloff 3 Park. Cr. 401; People v. Hennessey 15 Wend. 147; People v. Ah How 34 Cal. 218.
   Cooley, J.

The respondent was convicted of an attempt to murder one Allen by administering morphine to him. The evidence that any such offence was committed was the respondent’s admission. The medical and other evidence in the case tended very strongly to show that the admission was unfounded. The defendant on the trial' explained his story by saying that he invented it to get up a sensation by way of advertisement for a firm of sensational doctors. The explanation was extraordinary, but on the evidence it is more credible than the confession on which respondent was convicted.

An unsupported confession should not be received as sufficient evidence of the- corpus delicti. People v. Hennessey 15 Wend. 147; Stringfellow v. State 26 Miss. 157; States. Guild 5 Halsted 163. The respondent on the case submitted to the jury was entitled to an acquittal, and the conviction must be set aside and a discharge ordered

The other Justices concurred.