People v. Bladel, Docket No. 63834
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 63834 |
| Citation | 325 N.W.2d 421,118 Mich.App. 498 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudy BLADEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Edward J. Grant, Pros. Atty. and John L. Wildeboer, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Ronald J. Bretz, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Before BEASLEY, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and MacKENZIE, JJ.
(ON REMAND).
By order of the Supreme Court dated April 12, 1982, 1 we are required to reconsider, in light of People v. Paintman and People v. Conklin. 2
In Paintman the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress a statement given by the defendant to the police. The trial court ruled, following a Walker 3 hearing, that the statement should be excluded because it was involuntary. The Court of Appeals reversed, in an unpublished opinion, stating that the statements were voluntary and admissible. In Conklin the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress a confession he gave sheriff's officers holding that the statement had been made voluntarily and in compliance with Miranda. 4 Conklin was, thereafter, convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in an unpublished per curiam opinion. On the appeal of these cases to the Supreme Court, the Court held in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fitzgerald that the defendants' convictions must be reversed and the cases remanded for new trials, at which statements made without the requested assistance of counsel could not be admitted. 5 We read Paintman and Conklin in conjunction with the Supreme Court's order of remand in the within case to compel reversal. There is no necessity to repeat what was already said in our previous opinion affirming defendant's conviction. 6
The Supreme Court requests us to comment regarding "defendant's second issue on appeal".
In the brief filed with this Court, in his second issue, defendant claimed a Bobo 7 violation in two respects: first, obtaining testimony from a police witness that defendant remained silent when taken into custody and, second, when the prosecutor, in closing argument, used the fact of defendant's silence and of defendant's failure to offer an exculpatory explanation.
We held in our previous opinion that since there was neither objection made at trial nor manifest injustice present, the issue was not preserved for review. Regarding the merits, if objection had been made, we would believe it should have been sustained.
Since we reverse in accordance with the Supreme Court order, further comment would be redundant.
Reversed and remanded.
2 These two cases are reported together, 412 Mich. 518, 315 N.W.2d 418 (1982).
5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bladel
...concluded that Paintman and Conklin, when read in conjunction with this Court's remand order, "compelled" reversal. 118 Mich.App. 498, 325 N.W.2d 421 (1982). We granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal. 417 Mich. 885, 330 N.W.2d 846 Defendant Jackson was charged with first-d......
-
Michigan v. Jackson Michigan v. Bladel
...reconsideration in the light of a recent decision by the State Supreme Court, it reversed and remanded for a new trial. 118 Mich.App. 498, 325 N.W.2d 421 (1982). The Michigan Supreme Court then granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and considered the case with respondent ......
-
Blake v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...in the context of an interrogation occurring after a defendant has requested the appointment of counsel. People v. Bladel (On Remand), 118 Mich.App. 498, 325 N.W.2d 421 (1982). Thereafter, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and affirmed the r......
-
Blake v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...Bladel stemming from these murders see People v. Bladel, 106 Mich.App. 397, 308 N.W.2d 230 (1981), and People v. Bladel (On Remand), 118 Mich.App. 498, 325 N.W.2d 421 (1982).2 "Sec. 302 B. Risk of Intentional or Criminal ConductAn act or an omission may be negligent if the actor realizes or......