People v. Kuhn

205 N.W. 188, 232 Mich. 310, 1925 Mich. LEXIS 851
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided October 1, 1925·No. Docket No. 82.·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Wiest, J.

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, under a charge of having administered strychnine poison to Zelon Lake at the village of Jonesville, Hillsdale county, on the 26th day of December, 1922, and she prosecutes review by writ of error. Defendant is in middle life, passed at times as the wife of Zelon Lake, although they were not married and, at the time of the alleged killing, was on a holiday trip with him at the home of her niece in the village of Jonesville. It is the theory of the prosecution that defendant administered the strychnine poison in a dish of oatmeal or a cup of coifee she carried to the deceased in a bedroom shortly *312 after the noon meal. Mr. Lake did not partake of the noon meal but, shortly thereafter, complained of not feeling well and retired to a bedroom. His death occurred about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. So far as the evidence discloses the relations between defendant and Mr. Lake were agreeable, and they were making Christmas time visits to his mother in Marshall and to her relatives.

It is claimed no motive was shown. Although sometimes confused, motive and intent are not synonymous terms. A motive is an inducement for doing some act; it gives birth to a purpose. The resolve to commit an act constitutes the intent. The motive inducing the resolve, while illuminative of the intent, is necessarily merged therein and is not an essential element in proving commission of crime. The essential element of intent is not at all dependent upon motive. If the intent appears the motive inducing the design may be shown but if not shown the design remains and, as the intent governs, the inducement creating the intent is not essential. A motive is a relevant but not an essential fact in proof of murder. - It is true it exists whether disclosed or not. If disclosed it may aid the prosecution, but if not disclosed, or only faintly discernible, its absence or hidden character does not abort the charge if the intent is established. The evidence of motive was meager but what there was of it went to the jury, and properly so, on the question of intent.

It is said the law requires a record to be kept of all purchases of strychnine and the prosecution failed to show any purchase by defendant. True, but while this might have been, and probably was urged to the jury, it presents no question of law. Proof of purchase by defendant might have strengthened the prosecution, but the absence of such proof does not nullify the conviction. The prosecution called all eyewitnesses of the death bed scene and they gave *313 testimony that Mr. Lake’s death was peaceful and without convulsions. The jury evidently found that strychnine was given in oatmeal or coffee at least two hours before death, caused death, and notwithstanding the testimony of all eyewitnesses, death was preceded by convulsions. A fatal dosé of strychnine, if it does not cause immediate death, produces severe convulsions ending in death. If the poison found in the organs of the body was given about two hours before death the doctors agree there must of necessity have been convulsions. This uncontroverted medical evidence was directly opposed to the testimony of the eyewitnesses and presented an issue of fact for the jury. The medical evidence was also to the effect that the accepted minimum fatal dose of strychnine is about one-half grain, and may be slightly less. It is quick in action, goes to all parts of the body, because it is taken up from the stomach and intestines and carried through the blood stream everywhere the blood circulates, and a fatal dose causes death from almost immediately to three hours, though it may be extended to six or seven hours, and, if an analysis of a well sampled one-half of the stomach of a dead body, one-half of the liver and one-half of the kidneys disclosed 26/100 of a grain of strychnine there would be sufficient in the system to cause death, for there would be approximately the same amount in the other half of the organs mentioned, and if those organs contained 52/100 of a grain of strychnine it would of necessity have produced convulsions and was sufficient to have caused death.

Charles L. Bliss, a chemist and toxicologist, made a chemical analysis of a well sampled half of the stomach, liver and kidneys, and found therein 26/100 of a grain of strychnine and, over objection, was permitted to say there was, of necessity, an equal amount in the unexamined portions of the same organs. His qualification to give such conclusion is *314 attacked. The qualified medical testimony relative to the nature of strychnine and the method of its operation in a human body through the circulatory system rendered his conclusion true beyond question. His testimony was supplemented by uneontroverted competent medical testimony showing the correctness of his statement and, without passing upon the question of his qualifications, we can discover no harm done defendant by his statement of a fact conclusively established by medical expert testimony. This record fully supports the finding that the death of Mr. Lake was caused by strychnine poison.

Some little time after death the body was exhumed, the brain sectioned, the spinal cord examined, the heart sectioned and a complete examination made to determine whether there was any cause of death other than by strychnine poison, and none found.

It is insisted the evidence failed to show death was caused by crime. This has led us to make a critical examination of the evidence, in response to the duty placed upon us by the statute, relative to review, in this court, of the denial of the motion in the circuit for a new trial on the ground the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Kuhn, 205 N.W. 188, 232 Mich. 310, 1925 Mich. LEXIS 851 (Mich. 1925).

205 N.W. 188 (People v. Kuhn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People of Michigan v. Lloyd Jarvi
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2026
People of Michigan v. James Craig Baker
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2019
Judith Angeloff v. City of Royal Oak
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015
People v. Waterstone
296 Mich. App. 121 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2012)
People v. Watson
629 N.W.2d 411 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2001)
People v. Sabin
614 N.W.2d 888 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2000)
People v. Johnson
398 N.W.2d 219 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1986)
People v. Rotar
357 N.W.2d 885 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Golden
328 N.W.2d 667 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. ALFRED BROWN
194 N.W.2d 560 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
People v. Belcher
185 N.W.2d 440 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)
People v. Elmer Weatherspoon
148 N.W.2d 891 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1967)
State v. Wrosch
53 N.W.2d 779 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1952)
People v. Mihalko
10 N.W.2d 914 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1943)
People v. Franszkiewicz
4 N.W.2d 500 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1942)
State v. Waddell.
245 N.W. 140 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1932)
People v. Bean
243 N.W. 249 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)
People v. Gerndt
222 N.W. 185 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1928)
People v. Cipriano
213 N.W. 104 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)