Case Name: PEOPLE v. GILBERT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1974-08-27
Citations: 55 Mich. App. 168
Docket Number: Docket No. 15536
Parties: PEOPLE v GILBERT
Judges: Before: McGregor, P. J., and R. B. Burns and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 55
Pages: 168–183

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v GILBERT
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Confessions—Voluntariness—Hearing—Findings — Appeal and Error.
The findings of a trial court in a hearing to determine the voluntariness of a confession will be reversed upon appeal only if they are clearly erroneous.
2. Criminal Law — Evidence—Confessions—Voluntariness—Credibility.
A confession properly admitted into evidence is on an equal footing with all other properly admitted evidence, and the defendant is free to familiarize the jury with the circumstances that attended the taking of his confession, including facts bearing on voluntariness, to impeach its credibility, or to challenge the fact that it was ever given at all.
3. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Confessions—Pretrial Hearing — Voluntariness—Jury—Province of Jury.
Informing a jury of the existence, nature, and results of a pretrial hearing to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of a defendant’s confession improperly impinges upon the province of the jury; such information makes it unlikely that the jury will thereafter decide that the confession was never made and tends to unfairly discount the credibility of the defendant’s impeaching evidence, especially that properly admitted evidence which relates to voluntariness.
4. Homicide — Murder—General Verdict — Premeditated Murder— Felony Murder.
A defendant’s conviction of first-degree murder in a general verdict must be reversed where the jury was instructed upon both premeditated and felony murder theories but the felony murder theory was proved only by the defendant’s confession and was therefore not sufficiently established, because a conviction must be reversed where it rests upon one of the two theories, one of which is permissible and one of which is not, and it is not possible to say for sure upon which theory the conviction rests (MCLA 750.316).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-3] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 523-596.
[3, 5] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 584.
[4] 53 Am Jur, Trial §§ 286, 290, 627.
[6-9] 30 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 1140-1142.
[10] 53 Am Jur, Trial §§ 1005,1035-1062.
Concurrence in Part, Dissent in Part, by O’Hara, J.
5. Criminal Law — Confessions—Pretrial Hearing — Instructions to Jury — Evidence.
It is proper for a trial judge to inform the jury of a pretrial hearing to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of a confession where the defense has challenged the credibility of the confession by attempting to introduce evidence bearing on its voluntariness.
6. Criminal Law — Confessions—Corpus Delicti — Inculpatory Statements of Fact.
The corpus delicti was proved by more than the accused’s naked confession where there was sufficient other evidence in the several statements that the accused made to the police regarding the crime which were simple statements of fact that may have had inculpatory overtones but were far short of a confession.
7. Criminal Law — Confessions—Admissibility.
A confession itself becomes admissible when there is any evidence of the corpus delicti dehors the confession.
8. Homicide — Murder—Corpus Delicti — Evidence—Circumstantial Evidence — Inferences.
The corpus delicti refers to the crime, not to the accused perpetrator, and proof of the identity of the perpetrator of the crime is not a part of the corpus delicti; therefore, in a murder case, the corpus delicti was sufficiently established where the evidence consisted of the identification of two dead bodies riddled by gunshots, bits of glass which matched the broken headlights of the car abandoned by the accused, and testimony of a witness who saw two men running near the house where the bodies were found and who saw them leaving in the car which was later found and identiñed as the car involved; the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences.
9. Criminal Law — Evidence—Circumstantial Evidence — Corpus Delicti — Order of Proof.
It is not necessary to prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt before proof is admissible tending to connect the accused with the crime where the same set of facts, in a case of circumstantial evidence, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime and to prove the corpus delicti.
10. Criminal Law — Jury—Verdicts—General Verdicts — Form of Verdicts.
A jury in a criminal case has the right to return a general verdict on the merits, and there is no authority which holds that, when the case is submitted to the jury on two theories, the form of the verdict must specify upon which theory the jury based the verdict.
Appeal from Ingham, Jack W. Warren, J.
Submitted Division 2 June 4, 1974, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 15536.)
Decided August 27, 1974.
Leave to appeal denied, 393 Mich —.
Wayne Gilbert, Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Raymond L. Scodeller, Prosecuting Attorney, and Corbin R. Davis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Stiles, Fowler & Dudley, P. C, for defendant.
Before: McGregor, P. J., and R. B. Burns and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, J.
Defendant Wayne Gilbert, Jr. was convicted for the first-degree murders of Ruth Parrish and Debbie Ann Berger. He' appeals.
The first ground for defendant's appeal is that the trial court erroneously failed to suppress the defendant's confession. Defendant was arrested in Wisconsin. Defendant claims that while in the custody of the Wisconsin authorities he was forced to confess as a result of coercive tactics such as sleep deprivation, food deprivation, improper advice of his rights, isolation, and other intimidation. Because he had given such a confession to the Wisconsin authorities defendant gave an ostensibly admissible confession to the Michigan authorities, who were kept unaware of the improprieties, when they arrived to extradict him. Pursuant to People v Walker, 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (1965), a suppression hearing was held on the matter. The trial court found that the confessions were voluntarily made. The findings of a trial court in a Walker hearing will only be reversed on appeal if they are clearly erroneous. People v Hummel, 19 Mich App 266; 172 NW2d 550 (1969), and People v Toneff, 37 Mich App 221; 194 NW2d 390 (1971). A review of the record fails to substantiate any claim that the trial court's determination was clearly erroneous.
Defendant also challenges the propriety of the trial court's jury instructions. After the defendant's confession had been admitted into evidence before the jury, defense counsel attempted to impeach its credibility by producing evidence that touched upon its voluntariness, as well. As a result, the trial court instructed the jury that a Walker hearing had been held, that the defendant's confession was held to have been voluntarily given, and that the jury's determinations were limited to assigning the proper weight and credibility to the statements. Defense counsel timely objected to the instruction. Thus, the issue is preserved. GCR 1963, 516.2.
The court said:
"All right, ladies of the jury. Ladies of the jury, I want to make abundantly clear to you something which I instructed you upon prior to your being excused momentarily. I discussed with you the matter of what happens where a defendant makes a confession or an admission against interest. And I indicated to you the defendant is entitled to a hearing in advance of the trial before the judge on a separate record. The judge determines whether or not that confession [was] voluntarily made. If they were voluntarily made, if the judge looks at the duration and conditions of detention, the attitude of the police officers, the physical, mental state of the accused, the diverse pressures that might sap the accused's strength and so forth; if the judge declares, or, determines that the confession was voluntarily given to the police in this case, he then on the record indicates that this confession shall be admissible in evidence.

"Now, in this case I have made such a determination, that that could come before you, was voluntarily made, so far as any conduct of the police officers were [sic] concerned. It is for you the jury to consider and determine the weight and credibility of that confession 4c 4c * 9f ^
The purpose of the suppression hearing was to determine the admissibility of defendant's confession as evidence. A resolution in favor of admissibility merely placed the confession on an equal footing with all other properly admitted evidence. Defendant is as free as he was before the Walker hearing to familiarize the jury with the circumstances that attended the taking of his confession, including facts bearing on voluntariness, to impeach its credibility or to challenge the fact that it was ever given at all. Lego v Twomey, 404 US 477, 485-486; 92 S Ct 619, 625; 30 L Ed 2d 618, 625 (1971). After such evidence has been admitted, the trial judge may instruct the jury that they should determine, on the basis of all the relevant evidence, 1) if the confession was made, and 2) if they so find, they should decide if the statement is true. People v Williams, 46 Mich App 165; 207 NW2d 480 (1973).
The trial court should not, as happened in this case, go on to discuss anything more. For, to inform the jury of the existence, nature, and results of a Walker hearing not only makes it unlikely that the jury will thereafter decide the confession was never made, Williams, supra, but it also tends to unfairly discount the credibility of defendant's impeaching evidence, especially that properly admitted evidence that relates to voluntariness. The trial court thus would improperly impinge upon the province of the jury.
Michigan has long recognized the critical role confessions play in criminal trials. People v Summers, 15 Mich App 346; 166 NW2d 672 (1968). A properly preserved error that crippled the defendant's ability to challenge a confession cannot, in light of this precedent, be deemed harmless.
To avoid repetitious appeals, we will also consider the defendant's third ground for appeal. Defendant was charged on an open count of murder. At trial, evidence was produced to support both premeditated and felony murder theories. However, the only evidence bearing on the felony murder theory was defendant's confession itself. The jury was instructed on both theories, and defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder in a general verdict. While there is some evidence strongly suggesting the jury relied on a felony murder theory, there is no definite proof showing whether the jury relied on either or both theories to reach the verdict. The corpus delicti must be established by evidence other than the accused's
confession. People v Allen, 390 Mich 383; 212 NW2d 21 (1973), and People v Sparks, 53 Mich App 452; 220 NW2d 153 (1974). With only a confession to prove it, the felony murder theory was not sufficiently established in this case. When the defendant stands convicted on one of two theories, one of which is permissible and one of which is not, the inability to say for sure on which the conviction rests demands reversal. Stromberg v California, 283 US 359; 51 S Ct 532; 75 L Ed 1117 (1931), People v Purifoy, 34 Mich App 318; 191 NW2d 63 (1971), and .People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252; 197 NW2d 521 (1972).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
McGregor, P. J., concurred.