Case Name: PEOPLE v. HORN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-07-24
Citations: 41 Mich. App. 755
Docket Number: Docket No. 10293
Parties: PEOPLE v HORN
Judges: Before: Levin, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 41
Pages: 755–765

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v HORN
Opinion of the Court
1. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Premeditation—Inferences.
Premeditation can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a killing.
2. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Evidence.
Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of first-degree murder where defendant was observed successively beating the victim with a lead pipe, stabbing him with a screwdriver, breaking a chair over him, then continuing to beat him with a part of the chair, dragging him from the apartment, and then was seen in the furnace room with half a human body sticking out of the furnace.
3. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Evidence—Inferences.
A trial judge’s finding, as the finder of fact, that defendant was guilty of first-degree rather than second-degree murder was based upon reasonable inferences where the evidence showed that defendant attacked the victim with a variety of weapons, that on at least two occasions defendant was cool enough to hand over his weapons to an eyewitness who had requested defendant to stop, before continuing his attack on the victim, that defendant at the time was not so impassioned he could not think of a method to kill the victim and dispose of his remains, and that the victim was still alive when he was shoved into the furnace.
References for Points in Headnotes
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 264.
Homicide; presumption of deliberation or premediatation from the fact of killing, 86 ALR2d 656.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 44 etseq.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 45.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 261.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 107.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide §§ 128,129, 295.
Voluntary intoxication as defense to homicide, 79 ALR 897.
Modem status of the rules as to voluntary intoxication as defense to criminal charge, 8 ALR3d 1236.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide §§ 71, 72, 442.
40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 107.
Dissent by Levin, P. J.
4. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Premeditation.
Premeditation and deliberation are essential elements of ffrstdegree murder; proof of intent to kill is not enough to establish those elements no matter how brutal and unjustiñed the killing.
5. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Premeditation—Disposition of Victim.
Evidence of defendant’s efforts to dispose of his victim’s body is irrelevant in determining whether defendant in a cool state of mind deliberated, premeditated and then decided to kill his victim.
6. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Evidence.
Evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction of first-degree murder where the victim died as a result of a vicious and frenzied beating by defendant who not only had been drinking all the preceding day but also with his victim only an hour or so before the affray, where no animosity prior to the beating was shown to have existed between the two men, and where defendant repeatedly muttered during the beating concerning the victim’s aspersions about the character of the defendant’s girlfriend.
7. Homicide — Felony-Murder—Evidence.
No evidence existed for the trial judge’s ffnding that defendant killed his victim in order to steal the victim’s ring and a chain necklace with a key on it, valued at less than 25 cents, which defendant tore from the victim’s body during the course of a beating and threw behind a TV set.
8. Criminal Law — Homicide—Arrest—Probable Cause.
Probable cause existed to arrest defendant for homicide where a third person informed police that he had seen defendant in the furnace room of his apartment building, that there was half a human body sticking out of the furnace, and where the police, having made a proper entry of defendant’s apartment, discovered blood in plain sight.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Robert J. Colombo, J.
Submitted Division 1 October 14, 1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 10293.)
Decided July 24, 1972.
Leave to appeal denied, 388 Mich 793.
Frank R. Horn was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Michael R. Mueller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Kenneth A. Webb, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Levin, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, J.
The defendant was convicted by a judge sitting without a jury of first-degree murder. MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548.
The only argument of significance in this appeal concerns the defendant's assertion that since evidence on the element of "premeditation" was totally lacking, first-degree murder could not be proven. Premeditation can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a killing. People v Wolf, 95 Mich 625 (1893); People v Griner, 30 Mich App 612 (1971); People v Morrin, 31 Mich App 301 (1971). A review of the evidence discloses its sufficiency to support the first-degree murder conviction.
Joyce Montgomery observed the defendant beating the victim, Tingle, with a pipe across his back and buttocks as Tingle lay face down on the floor. Upon her request defendant surrendered the pipe. Joyce hid the pipe in the bathroom and when she returned she observed the defendant stabbing Tin gle with a screwdriver. She told defendant that there was no point in killing Tingle and requested that he surrender the screwdriver. He gave Joyce the screwdriver and she took it into the bedroom. When she returned from the bedroom defendant was striking Tingle with a chair.
Shirley Perryman testified that before Horn struck Tingle with the chair, Tingle escaped momentarily and ran to the door. Defendant caught him and brought him back into the apartment. He then struck Tingle with the chair. The chair broke from the force of the impact and defendant continued to beat Tingle with part of the chair. Tingle was moaning.
Joyce then observed defendant with a knife in his hand. She grabbed his wrist and he gave her the knife.
The defendant then dragged Tingle from the apartment and was gone five to ten minutes.
A short time later Fuzzell Perryman observed defendant in the furnace room and half a human body sticking out of the furnace. When the police arrived, they found human remains in the ashes.
The defendant was not so impassioned that he could not think of a method to kill the victim and dispose of his remains at the same time. Sufficient evidence exists to support the inference that the victim was still alive when he was shoved into a furnace. The attacks on the victim were made with a variety of weapons. On at least two separate occasions, the defendant was "cool" enough to politely hand over his weapons before continuing his attack.
It is not this Court's function to replace the trier of fact's opinion with its own. Where the factfinder's opinion stems from "reasonable" inferences, then we must affirm. People v Moore, 306 Mich 29 (1943); People v Mosden, 381 Mich 506 (1969).
The evidence in this case is sufficient to render the inference of premeditation a reasonable one.
Affirmed.
J. H. Gillis, J., concurred.