People v. Gould
156 Mich. App. 413, 1986 Mich. App. LEXIS 3064, 402 N.W.2d 27 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant’s confession may not be admitted into evidence until the prosecution establishes the corpus delicti of the crime, which, for false pretenses, requires independent evidence showing the victim detrimentally relied on the defendant's specific false representation.
Facts:
- Defendant had previously filed an application for unemployment benefits, stating she worked at Ray’s Asphalt, Inc., from May 5, 1983, to October 18, 1983.
- Ray’s Asphalt, Inc., had officially dissolved as a company on May 15, 1983.
- On January 10, 1984, defendant filed a new application for unemployment benefits with the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC).
- On this application, defendant represented that she worked at Ray’s Asphalt, Inc., from '6-6-83' to '1-6-83,' a factually impossible date range where the end date preceded the start date.
- Based on this application, the MESC issued a payment of $316 to the defendant on January 24, 1984.
- Defendant later signed two separate statements, on February 21, 1984, and May 17, 1984, admitting she had falsified the application.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was tried before a jury in a Michigan trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting the defendant of false pretenses over $100.
- Defendant’s extrajudicial confessions were admitted into evidence over her objection at trial.
- Subsequently, the defendant was convicted in a separate bench trial of being a second-felony offender.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years probation, with the first twelve months to be served in county jail.
- The defendant appealed her conviction as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the prosecution establish the corpus delicti for the crime of false pretenses, thereby allowing a defendant's confession to be admitted, when it fails to present independent evidence that the victim detrimentally relied on the defendant's facially impossible false representation?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The prosecution does not establish the corpus delicti for false pretenses when it fails to present independent evidence of the victim's detrimental reliance on the defendant's misrepresentation. The corpus delicti rule requires the prosecution to prove that all essential elements of a crime have been committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted. The crime of false pretenses requires: (1) a false representation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to deceive, and (4) detrimental reliance by the victim. Here, the prosecution failed to establish the element of reliance. The defendant’s application stated she worked from June 6, 1983, to January 6, 1983, a facially impossible timeline from which an MESC worker could not have determined eligibility. Therefore, the MESC could not have relied on what the defendant actually represented; rather, payment was likely made because a worker mistakenly approved a facially invalid application. Because the prosecution failed to present evidence of reliance independent of the confession, the corpus delicti was not established, and the trial court erred by admitting the defendant's confessions into evidence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of the corpus delicti rule and clarifies the reliance element in the crime of false pretenses. It establishes that a victim's carelessness or mistake in processing a fraudulent claim does not satisfy the requirement that the victim relied on the defendant's misrepresentation. Prosecutors cannot simply infer reliance; they must present specific evidence showing the victim was actually induced to act by the defendant's false statement. This holding protects defendants from being convicted solely on a confession when the underlying facts, absent the confession, do not legally constitute the crime charged.
