## Facts

- Carl Lewis Geiger and his estranged wife, Sharon Geiger, were separated.
- On May 6, 1965, Sharon and a friend arrived at a Prudenville bar; the friend observed Sharon’s health as normal and saw no visible injuries beforehand.
- In the parking lot, Geiger confronted Sharon and, according to the friend, tried to force her into a car, threw her into it, and drove away.
- Geiger later told police he drove Sharon to a school playing field, argued with her, struck her two or three times with an open hand, pushed her to the ground, and she hit her head on the car and appeared unconscious.
- Geiger took Sharon to a rented trailer and attempted to clean her rather than seeking prompt medical aid.
- In the early morning of May 7, Geiger woke a friend to help move Sharon’s car and stated he might be “facing a murder rap.”
- Geiger asked his employer for money, saying he needed cash to “get away for a few days.”
- Geiger later transported Sharon more than 180 miles before stopping at a hospital, where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
- Medical testimony attributed death to asphyxiation from choking while attempting to vomit (aspiration) after being struck by a blunt object such as a hand or fist.
- Geiger’s statement to police omitted claimed facts about forcing Sharon into the car and his intervening visits before seeking medical help.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported instructing the jury on second-degree murder by permitting an inference of malice.
2. Whether the trial court misstated the burden and standard of proof on sanity after evidence of insanity was introduced.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to infer malice and thus to justify an instruction on second-degree murder.
- The court held the sanity instruction was erroneous because it suggested the prosecution needed to prove sanity only by a “fair preponderance of the evidence.”
- The court reversed the manslaughter conviction and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Malice for second-degree murder may be inferred from the nature of the acts, the extent of injuries, and the defendant’s conduct before and after the assault, including delay in obtaining aid and conduct suggesting consciousness of guilt.
- When a defendant introduces evidence raising the issue of insanity, the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt as part of proving criminal responsibility.
- Jury instructions that lower the prosecution’s burden on sanity are prejudicial error requiring reversal when the issue is material to guilt.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because the jury was incorrectly instructed that sanity could be proven by a preponderance, even though the evidence permitted the jury to consider malice and second-degree murder; a new trial was required with correct instructions placing on the prosecution the burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once insanity was put in issue.


People v. Geiger, 10 Mich. App. 339, 159 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)