People v. DeLisle

• Decision Date: 01 June 1990
• Docket Number: Docket No. 124900
• Citation: 183 Mich.App. 713,455 N.W.2d 401
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence John DeLISLE, Defendant-Appellee. 183 Mich.App. 713, 455 N.W.2d 401
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 401

455 N.W.2d 401

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence John DeLISLE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 124900.

183 Mich.App. 713, 455 N.W.2d 401

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 12, 1990.

Decided May 8, 1990.

Released for Publication June 1, 1990.

[183 MICHAPP 714] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, and Jeffrey Caminsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Frank D. Eaman, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C.J., and CYNAR and SHEPHERD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The people appeal by leave granted from the December 21, 1989, order of Detroit Recorder's Court Judge Robert J. Colombo, Jr., which granted defendant's motion to suppress a statement made to the Wyandotte police on the night of August 10-11, 1989. After reviewing the record made below, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made and accordingly affirm.

[183 MICHAPP 715]

I

On August 3, 1989, defendant was driving the family car when it plunged into the Detroit River. Although defendant and his wife managed to escape, their four minor children all drowned. Defendant stated at the time that the event was an accident, caused when defendant developed a leg cramp as he drove the car toward the river in order to give the children a scenic view. Defendant claimed that the leg cramp made it impossible for him to remove his foot from the accelerator and apply the brake.

Sergeant Galeski of the Wyandotte police contacted defendant on August 9, 1989, and invited him to take a polygraph test the next day. Defendant agreed, and on August 10 he and his wife were picked up between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. and taken in separate police cars to a Michigan State Police facility in Lansing. When they arrived in Lansing, defendant was separated from his wife and placed in a small room with a polygraph machine. The examiner, Sergeant Palmatier of the Michigan State Police, pretested defendant, gave him Miranda ¹ warnings, and then began the polygraph examination at approximately 10:14 a.m. The examination continued until 12:55 p.m., followed by a lunch break during which defendant was reunited with his wife. Defendant returned to the examination room at approximately 1:43 p.m. and was interrogated by Sergeant Palmatier until approximately 5:30 p.m. Sergeant Galeski then replaced Sergeant Palmatier, asked defendant a few questions, and placed him under arrest at approximately 6:08 p.m. Defendant was then transported to the Wyandotte police station, arriving at [183 MICHAPP 716] approximately 7:30 p.m. Defendant's wife presumably was taken home separately.

After his arrival at the Wyandotte police station, defendant was fingerprinted and placed in a cell from approximately 7:30 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. At that time defendant was removed from his cell and taken to a small office where he was interrogated by Sergeant Galeski, who readvised defendant of his Miranda rights prior to beginning the interrogation. During the course of the interrogation, defendant made statements which purportedly constitute a confession that he intentionally drove the family car into the river. The interrogation lasted until approximately 1:00 a.m.

On August 11, 1989, defendant was arraigned on four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder of his wife. At his preliminary examination, defendant argued that the statement given to Sergeant Galeski should be suppressed because it was not made voluntarily. The district court denied the motion and relied in part upon the disputed evidence in binding defendant over.

Defendant renewed his motion to suppress before the trial court. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 21, 1989. At the close of the hearing the trial court stated from the bench its findings of fact and concluded that defendant's statement was made involuntarily and accordingly granted his motion to suppress. It is from this decision that the people appeal.

II

In reaching its decision the trial court reviewed the following exhibits which were received into evidence: two videotapes of defendant's polygraph examination and interrogation in Lansing; an audiotape of defendant's interrogation by Sergeant [183 MICHAPP 717] Galeski in Wyandotte; a transcript of the audiotape, which the trial court recognized contains numerous errors; the Miranda rights waiver which defendant signed in Wyandotte; an advice of rights and polygraph waiver which defendant signed in Lansing; a videotape, prepared by defendant, consisting of fifty minutes of excerpts from the complete videotapes of the Lansing session; and a photograph which apparently shows defendant resting his head on Sergeant Galeski's shoulder while he is being arraigned on August 11, 1989.

At the suppression hearing the trial court heard testimony from Sergeant Galeski, William DeLisle and Michael Abramsky, Ph.D. Sergeant Galeski testified regarding the sequence of events beginning with defendant's being picked up on the morning of August 10 and ending with his statement being taken later that evening. Sergeant Galeski characterized defendant as looking a little tired but appearing coherent in the morning. On cross-examination, Sergeant Galeski refused to say that defendant was incoherent when he gave his statement in Wyandotte, but admitted that defendant spoke in incomplete sentences and rambled, changing subjects often and talking about whatever crossed his mind. Sergeant Galeski also stated on cross-examination that he consulted with a Dr. Kaufman, a psychologist apparently connected with the Michigan State Police in Lansing, in connection with his investigation of the incident and also to prepare for his interrogation of defendant. Sergeant Galeski testified that Dr. Kaufman recommended Sergeant Palmatier to do the polygraph examination and interrogation and also suggested that the suicide of defendant's father might be of some interest to Sergeant Galeski.

William DeLisle, defendant's uncle, testified that defendant appeared to be hallucinating immediately[183 MICHAPP 718] after his arraignment. The witness testified that defendant abruptly broke off his conversation with the witness and began to shout as though he were addressing his dead father.

Dr. Abramsky testified that he is a licensed psychologist and that he interviewed defendant on August 28 and September 17, 1989, for approximately two hours each time.

Dr. Abramsky stated that, after reviewing the videotapes and audiotapes, it was his opinion that defendant's interrogators, especially Sergeant Palmatier, used hypnotic techniques. In his opinion, the statement given by defendant to Sergeant Galeski later that evening in Wyandotte was the direct result of the techniques used in Lansing, which were carried over to a lesser extent in Wyandotte.

The prosecution did not contest Dr. Abramsky's status as an expert and offered no testimony in rebuttal. The trial court found that the videotapes constituted compelling evidence that defendant's will to resist the accusations and suggestions faded over the course of the day and that by the end of the session in Lansing defendant's will to resist had collapsed. The trial court found that defendant's statement to Sergeant Galeski in Wyandotte later that night was the product of the Lansing interrogation and defendant's resulting psychological...