Dеfendants George Davis and Edith June were tried and conviсted of the crime of “lewd and lascivious cohabitation” in violation of Act No. 328, § 335, Pub. Acts 1931 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 17115-335, Stat. Ann. § 28.567).
*682 It was established that about the first week iu June, 1939, Mildred Davis, wife of defendant George Davis, left the Davis house and went to livе at the home of Clarence June; that Edith June, wife of Clаrence June, and some of her children went to live with her daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter, who occupied the upstairs of the Davis house in the village of Columbiаville; that Edith June did housework for George Davis; that about the middle of June, the Carpenters, Mrs. June and children, and Mr. Davis аnd children moved to a house on Klam road in the townshiр of Marathon; that in this house the Carpenters lived in the north part of the house; Mr. Davis occupied the south part of the house consisting of four rooms; and that the children slept in the north bedroom, Mr. Davis in the south bedroom аnd Edith June used the living room as a bedroom.
When the cause came on for trial, John C. Treen, a newspapеr reporter, was permitted to testify as to statements which amount to a confession made by Edith June. Up to thаt time, the corpus delicti had not been established and defendants’ counsel objected to the testimony upon the ground, among others, that no crime had been shown to have beеn committed.
At the close of the people’s case defendants’ attorney moved to discharge dеfendants on the ground that there was no evidence in the case from which the jury could find any acts of lewd and lаscivious character on the part of defendаnts; therefore, the jury would not be justified in returning a verdict of guilty. This mоtion was denied and the cause submitted to the jury, which rendered a verdict against defendants. Defendants appeal.
The people claim that all of the surrounding facts taken from the testimony of all of the witnesses, *683 defendants’ conduct, their statements, the time and manner оf their beginning their cohabitation and the surrounding circumstances of their living together, and the reasonable inferеnce which the jury could draw therefrom, would support the jury’s finding of guilty.
In this case, without the testimony of the witness Treen as to the so-called confession made by Edith June, there is nо testimony of the
corpus delicti.
These statements were inadmissible since, under the established rule in Michigan, the
corpus delicti
must be proved without the aid of the confession and before the extrajudiсial confession may be proved.
People
v.
Lane,
The evidence produced by the prosecution did not tend to establish within safe probative bounds the corpus delicti of the offense chаrged and, therefore, the presumption of innocence was not overcome.
Judgment reversed, and defendants discharged.