People v. Alexander, Docket No. 77-636

• Decision Date: 09 November 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 77-636
• Citation: 79 Mich.App. 495,261 N.W.2d 63
• Parties: In the Matter of the PEOPLE v. Janice Lee ALEXANDER. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECORDER'S COURT JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 63

261 N.W.2d 63

79 Mich.App. 495

In the Matter of the PEOPLE v. Janice Lee ALEXANDER.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECORDER'S COURT JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 77-636.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Nov. 9, 1977.

Released for Publication Jan. 12, 1978.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, App. Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.

Theodore B. Sallen, Detroit, for Alexander.

Alphonso R. Harper, Detroit, for Judge.

Before D. E. HOLBROOK, P. J., and KAUFMAN and McDONALD, ^* JJ.

KAUFMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals an order by Wayne County Circuit Judge James N. Canham denying plaintiff's motion for an order of superintending control directing defendant to reinstate a charge of second-degree murder against Janice Lee Alexander and bind her over for trial.

Ms. Alexander was charged with second-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.317; M.S.A. § 28.549, in connection with the slaying of William Robinson. On June 3, 1976, an examination began before defendant Judge Borman. Plaintiff attempted to introduce a statement given by Ms. Alexander to a police officer. The officer testified that Ms. Alexander had been given her Miranda ¹ rights and that she then asked him "if I thought she should have an attorney and I told her I thought she should tell me what happened". ² Upon submission of briefs, defendant ruled the confession inadmissible and dismissed the case.

Plaintiff then sought an order of superintending control in Wayne County Circuit Court. Judge Canham noted that "(t)he Prosecutor's argument rests on the assumption that Defendant's question to the interrogating officer was merely a request for advice and not a request for counsel". Judge Canham concluded, (t)he Judge's refusal to admit the statement, must, therefore, have been based on a determination that Defendant's question was an indication of a desire for counsel * * *. Further interrogation was therefore clearly in violation of Miranda ".

His conclusion was bolstered by specific language from Miranda holding that an indication in any manner that counsel is requested halts further questioning until counsel is produced. Further, Judge Canham persuasively distinguished other United States Supreme Court cases limiting the holding of Miranda in other areas. Judge Canham also cited People v. Lewis, 47 Mich.App. 450, 209 N.W.2d 450 (1973), wherein this Court held that an ambiguous indication of an interest in having counsel required cessation of interrogation.

Noting the limited scope of review inherent in a superintending court, Judge Canham found no abuse of discretion.

This Court's review of the circuit court's denial is also subject to an "abuse of discretion" standard, People v. Flint Municipal Judge, 41 Mich.App. 766, 770-771, 201 N.W.2d 111 (1972). See also People v. Dellabonda, 265 Mich. 486, 251 N.W. 594 (1933). Thus, the ruling of the reviewing court in this case can be overturned only if this Court finds that the reviewing court abused its discretion in finding that the examining magistrate did not abuse her discretion.

We find no abuse of discretion. Therefore, we...