A jury convicted Charles Martin Fullwood of first-degree murder. MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548. He appeals as of right.
Police discovered Joyce Ann Tuggle’s fatally wounded, partially burned body, on April 29, 1971, in a secluded location in Edward Hines Park, after receiving an informant’s tip. Earlier that day she had been reported missing from a bar where she was employеd as the day-shift barmaid. Her em *479 ployer had observed her reading newspaper want ads before he left that morning. A delivery man last saw the victim alive, working alоne, about 11:30 a.m. He also noticed a red station wagon enter the parking lot, and a stocky man of middle stature exit the car and enter the bar. Another witness reported entering the open, but vacant, bar about an hour later. The victim’s husband, who stopped for lunch, reported his wife missing at 1:15 p.m. Police investigatiоn revealed that cash register contents and a money box containing $150 including $52 in coins were missing. Mrs. Tuggle’s coat and purse containing $30 were inside the bar and her сar was still in the lot. There were no signs of struggle; an open newspaper, a candy bar wrapper, and glass and coaster (lacking usable fingerprints) remаined on the counter.
Witnesses testified that about 4 p.m. defendant exchanged approximately $50 in coins for bills at his neighborhood store. The owner had told dеfendant earlier that he needed change. Defendant stated the coins were his poker winnings.
About 9 p.m. a tipster who called himself "C.A.” telephoned a tеlevision news desk with a murder report. He related that he had witnessed two men murder a woman the previous evening, and gave precise directions to the body’s location. The tipster subsequently contacted the police directly. Defendant, en route at a later date to the county jail, told police he was "C.A.”, gave the television station’s telephone number, and reiterated the identical exculpatory claim.
A barmaid testified that about 9 p.m., defendаnt asked for change to call police and report a dead woman’s body in the park. Other witnesses testified that defendant, acting peculiarly, struck uр conversations about Joyce Tuggle’s disappearance *480 and death in local bars at 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. that evening.
Defendant, wearing a bloodstained shirt, was arrested near his home some 17 hours after the discovery of the body. A subsequent car search, pursuant to warrant, produced a .38-caliber weapon found in the air vent, a gasoline can, a clump of fibers matching similar fibers found at the scene, and human hair and blood samples matching the victim’s. Experts concluded the victim was murdered elsewhere and deрosited in the park. Police theorized she was murdered in the defendant’s car.
Separate counts of murder in the perpetration of a kidnapping and premeditated murder were lodged against defendant. On appeal, he argues that the jury improperly considered the felony-murder count, becausе no evidence established that the victim was alive at the time of asportation.
The facts adduced support a kidnapping charge.
People v Adams,
"2. The movement element is not sufficient if it is 'merely incidental’ to the commission of another underlying lesser crimе.
"3. If the underlying crime involves murder * * * *481 movement incidental thereto is generally sufficient to establish a valid statutory kidnapping.” People v Adams, supra, 238;205 NW2d 422 . (Emphasis supplied.)
Wary of resurrecting the recently interred "any movement” rule, we nevertheless think Adams concludes that movement of a live victim any distance incidental to the murder suffices to make out a valid statutory kidnapping. Applying the Adams test, we conclude that murder, often the consequence of the prior kidnapping, is the underlying crime in this transaction. The elements of kidnapping could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence here adduced. Thus, no error resulted from allowing the felony-murdеr charge to go to the jury.
The information, charging alternative counts of premeditated and felony murder, went to the jury. The jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degrеe. Defendant claims he was entitled to know upon which theory the jury convicted to insure his right to a unanimous verdict and avoid double jeopardy problems. Wе do not agree.
As to the jeopardy question,
Turner v Arkansas,
Because sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction under either count, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for new trial.
Defendant next contends that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the murder weapon. After defendant’s arrest, his car remained at his home until a police officer was dispatched to perform a cursory search. Some two hours later a private wrеcker, regularly employed by the police, transported the car to a private, fenced yard where it remained unlocked until transported to the police garage nine hours later. A search pursuant to a warrant produced the weapon, hidden in an air vent. The chain of custody was establishеd since possession of the car was traced through its final custodian. The fact that the car was unlocked while in a private fenced lot, and that the gun was later discovered, are conditions affecting weight, not admissibility. The prosecution made a prima facie showing of identity and connection with the crimе.
People v Kozlow,
Defendant alleges abuse of discretion in admitting an 8 X 10 glossy colored photograph of the deceased, taken at the murder scene. Since probative value outweighed prejudice no abuse of discretion occurred. Defendant stipulated to the condition of the body, and claimed "the wrong man” was charged as in
People v Falkner,
We conclude that this photograph was "substantially necessary or instructive to show material facts or conditions” and nоt merely "calculated to excite passion and prejudice”.
People v Falkner,
supra, 685;
People v Morrin,
Finally, no error resulted from admitting evidence of the uncharged larceny or robbery. By providing a motive, the evidence lent substance to the first-degree murder charge.
People v Vail,
Affirmed.