People v. Lane

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Lane

13 N.W. 622, 49 Mich. 340, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 571

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 20, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 13 N.W. 622 (People v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Lane, 13 N.W. 622, 49 Mich. 340, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 571 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.W. 622, 49 Mich. 340, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lane-mich-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack