People v. Geiger
159 N.W. 2d 383, 10 Mich. App. 339, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1419 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a criminal defendant introduces any evidence of insanity, the presumption of sanity is overcome, and the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to establish the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Defendant, Geiger, and his wife, Sharon Geiger, were estranged.
- On the evening of May 6, 1965, Geiger confronted Sharon in a bar parking lot, forced her into his car, and drove away.
- Geiger drove to a school playing field, where he argued with Sharon, struck her two or three times with his open hand, and pushed her to the ground, causing her to hit her head against the car.
- Sharon lost consciousness after the assault.
- Geiger took his unconscious wife to a trailer, but did not seek medical assistance for several hours.
- During this time, Geiger visited a friend, stating he might be 'facing a murder rap,' and obtained money from his employer to 'get away for a few days.'
- Approximately 6 to 8 hours after the assault, Geiger drove 186 miles to a hospital, where his wife was pronounced dead.
- An autopsy determined the cause of death was asphyxiation from choking on her own vomit, a condition which the pathologist testified was caused by the head trauma from the beating diminishing her normal reflexes.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged defendant Geiger with first-degree murder in the circuit court, which is the trial court of first instance.
- The trial court instructed the jury on second-degree murder and manslaughter.
- A jury convicted Geiger of manslaughter.
- Geiger, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it a reversible error for a trial court to instruct a jury that the prosecution must prove a defendant's sanity by a 'fair preponderance of the evidence' after the defendant has introduced evidence of insanity?
Opinions:
Majority - Burns, J.
Yes. It is a reversible error to instruct a jury that the prosecution need only prove a defendant's sanity by a preponderance of the evidence, as the correct standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt once any evidence of insanity is introduced. While a defendant is presumptively sane, once the defense offers any evidence to rebut this presumption, the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt as a necessary condition of guilt. The court explicitly rejected prior case law that conflated the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard with the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, stating they are not the same. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer malice for a second-degree murder charge based on the nature of the beating, the defendant's failure to seek timely medical aid, and his incriminating statements, even though the direct cause of death was asphyxiation, as the beating was the indirect cause.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and solidifies the standard of proof for the insanity defense in Michigan. It explicitly rejects any lesser standard, such as a 'preponderance of the evidence,' and firmly establishes that the prosecution bears the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once the defense raises the issue. This decision strengthens due process protections for defendants by treating sanity, once challenged, as an essential element of the crime that the prosecution must prove to the highest legal standard. By overruling inconsistent precedent, the court provided a clear, bright-line rule for lower courts to follow regarding the burden-shifting framework of the insanity defense.
