People v. Clark

• Decision Date: 19 November 2019
• Docket Number: No. 343607,343607
• Citation: 948 N.W.2d 604,330 Mich.App. 392
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay Scott CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

330 Mich.App. 392

948 N.W.2d 604

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Jay Scott CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 343607

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted September 5, 2019, at Grand Rapids.

Decided November 19, 2019, 9:00 a.m.

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and Daniel Ping, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

State Appellate Defender (by Chari K. Grove, Detroit, and Lindsay Ponce) for defendant.

Before: Swartzle, P.J., and Gleicher and M. J. Kelly, JJ.

Swartzle, P.J. Police take a person into custody for questioning related to a murder. Police explain to the person his rights under Miranda v. Arizona . The person exercises his right to remain silent, but while being escorted to a cell, he reinitiates a discussion, and police immediately return him to the interview room. He is reminded that his Miranda rights had been read to him earlier, and he agrees to talk. Under this fact pattern, must the person's incriminating statements made during the reinitiated interview be suppressed?

Defendant asks us to hold so, but he does so without support. Instead, we hold that there is no bright-line rule that in the absence of rereading the person his Miranda rights a second time when discussions are reinitiated, the person's subsequent statements must be suppressed. Rather, the test is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the person voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel and to remain silent. Under the circumstances here, there is no basis to suppress defendant's incriminating statements made to police. Further concluding that there is no other ground for reversal, we affirm defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and felony-firearm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. THE BODY

On April 2, 2017, the victim's body was found in a wooded area in Hillsdale County. The medical examiner determined that the victim died because he was shot five times; four bullets entered his left side and one bullet entered his right side. The medical examiner opined that the shots had been fired contemporaneously and that the single gunshot wound to the victim's right side appeared to be from a smaller bullet. Police recovered two .45 caliber bullets from the victim's jacket and sweatshirt, and concluded that both of those bullets had been fired from the same weapon. In addition, the medical examiner recovered a .45 caliber bullet from the victim's body during the autopsy.

B. DEFENDANT CONFESSES BUT LATER MOVES TO SUPPRESS

Police officers interviewed Ashley Hoath,¹ a woman who dated the victim at various times. Ashley ultimately pleaded guilty to second-degree murder arising from the victim's death, and the trial court sentenced her to serve 25 to 40 years in prison. This Court denied her delayed application for leave to appeal, People v. Hoath , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 29, 2018 (Docket No. 343918), and our Supreme Court also denied her application for leave to appeal, People v. Hoath , 503 Mich. 889, 919 N.W.2d 75 (2018). Based on information that Ashley provided, police arrested defendant in connection with the victim's death. Police did not immediately interview defendant at the time of his arrest because he was intoxicated.

Deputy Wesley Ludeker and Sergeant Kevin Bradley of the Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department interviewed defendant on the morning after his arrest. Defendant subsequently moved to suppress the statements he gave to police that day.

Sergeant Bradley testified at the pretrial hearing on defendant's motion to suppress that when they questioned him, defendant was cogent, alert, and communicating well. Police recorded defendant's first interview, and during this interview, Deputy Ludeker read defendant his Miranda rights from a prepared card. Defendant asked, "So I can stop answering questions any time I want?" According to Sergeant Bradley, Deputy Ludeker agreed that defendant could do so, and defendant said, "Okay, then." Deputy Ludeker told defendant that he had spoken with Ashley and she was "selling him down the river" because she blamed him entirely and denied any involvement in the victim's death. At that point, defendant asserted his right to counsel and police ceased the interrogation. The recording of this first interview indicates that it lasted only four minutes.

Deputy Jeffrey Miller testified that he retrieved defendant from the interview room and began escorting him to the jail. Deputy Miller did not recall saying anything to defendant as he escorted defendant back to his cell. When they were just a few feet away from the interview room, defendant said, "Hey, could you tell those guys however Ashley said it happened, I'm willing to sign whatever." Deputy Miller agreed to convey that message, and he secured defendant in his jail cell. Deputy Miller then told Deputy Ludeker what defendant said, and another police officer escorted defendant back to the interview room. Importantly, only a few minutes passed between the initial reading of defendant's Miranda rights, his invocation of his right to counsel, and his subsequent decision to submit a signed statement.

Sergeant Bradley testified that after defendant's first interview, he went to the undersheriff's office. Deputy Ludeker then informed the sergeant that defendant reinitiated a discussion, and the two police officers returned to the interview room. Although they did not restart the recording device, they instructed another police officer to do so. Sergeant Bradley admitted that neither he nor Deputy Ludeker reread defendant his Miranda rights verbatim from the prepared card after defendant reinitiated the discussion with them.

According to Sergeant Bradley, Deputy Ludeker reminded defendant that he had invoked his right to counsel and asked him if he had changed his mind and wanted to talk to them. Defendant told them that he had changed his mind, he wanted to speak with them, and he immediately informed the officers, "Whatever Ashley said happened, is what happened." Sergeant Bradley testified that after they had been speaking with defendant for some time, an officer knocked on the door of the interview room and asked him to step outside. Sergeant Bradley learned that the recording of this second discussion had missed the initial 30 to 45 seconds. Sergeant Bradley then reentered the interview room and told defendant that he respected him for speaking with police about the victim's death, waiving his rights, and telling police what happened. Sergeant Bradley said defendant responded, "Yeah" and "Thanks."

Deputy Ludeker testified that defendant left the interview room after his first interview, but then asked to return and agreed to waive his rights to counsel and to remain silent. According to Deputy Ludeker, he reminded defendant that he had been read his Miranda warnings, then asked defendant if he understood his rights, and defendant said, "Yes." Defendant then explained that he remembered being read his rights, understood them, waived them, and was prepared to give a statement. Deputy Ludeker testified that defendant's first statement after waiving his rights was, "Whatever Ashley said happened is how it happened."

Defendant also testified during the hearing on his pretrial motion to suppress. He acknowledged that Deputy Ludeker read him his Miranda rights during the first interview. Although he asserted that he had just been on a nine-day alcohol and drug binge, defendant nevertheless admitted that he understood his rights when they were first read to him. Defendant also admitted that he was brought back to the interview room after stating that he wanted to speak with the two investigating officers. The police officers did not threaten him and treated him "great."

Although defendant conceded that he initiated the second interview with police and that he voluntarily spoke with the police officers during the second interview, he stated that he was "spurred" to do so by Deputy Miller, who said something to get his mind going about Ashley, and he feared that Ashley might be in jail. Yet, defendant did not elaborate on what specifically "spurred" him, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Deputy Miller badgered defendant to reinitiate discussions. Defendant testified that the police officers did not reread his Miranda rights to him before the second interview, but he admitted that Deputy Ludeker reminded him that he had invoked his right to counsel and asked if he wanted to speak to police again.

After the close of proofs at the suppression hearing, defense counsel argued that it was not enough that defendant voluntarily spoke to the officers during the second interview. Instead, defense counsel argued that there was a bright-line rule that the officers had to reread defendant's Miranda rights to him verbatim before they could speak to him again. The trial court disagreed with defense counsel that this was the law. The trial court then found that defendant understood his rights and had waived them, and the court concluded that defendant's statements made during the second interview were admissible:

It would appear clearly to this Court based on the facts that I have before me that the five minute hiatus, Mr. Clark waived his rights. He invoked them. He knew them. He understood them. He initiated conduct [sic]. He was reminded of the fact that those rights were read to him. He [was] asked if essentially he understood them. And that he wished to talk. He admitted yes in all that regard.

I do not believe that the case law that had been cited referring to Michigan and federal cases require[s] a specific second reading verbatim of Miranda rights. And that's what I base my ruling on. If I am mistaken, obviously the rights weren't read and if that's what the appellate courts are standing on the proposition they must be read verbatim, obviously it did not take place here.

But I don't believe that's what the case law interprets. I

...