People v. Conte

Citation365 N.W.2d 648,421 Mich. 704
Decision Date01 March 1984
Docket Number68192,68193,67351,69664 and 71241,Nos. 5-9,Docket Nos. 66858,s. 5-9
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Augustino Camelio CONTE, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy L. MEAKER, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alonzo Lee NORMAN, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Landry COOPER, Defendant-Appellee. 421 Mich. 704, 365 N.W.2d 648 Calendar,
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., Oakland County, Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Counsel by Thomas S. Richards, Asst. Pros. Atty., Pontiac, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 66858.

Gerald Hale Ladue, Gerald Hale Ladue, Southfield, for defendant-appellant in No. 66858.

John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., County of Wayne, Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Civil and Appeals, Robert J. Sheiko, Asst. Prosecutor, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 67351.

Lawrence R. Greene, Detroit, for defendant-appellee in No. 67351.

Susan Lee Dobrich, Prosecutor, Cassopolis, for plaintiff-appellee in Nos. 68192, 68193.

Richard B. Ginsberg, Asst. Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant in Nos. 68192, 68193.

John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Civil and Appeals, Larry L. Roberts, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 69664.

McLain & Winters by William Douglas Winters, Christina B. Buoye, Associate on the Brief, Ypsilanti, for defendant-appellee in No. 69664.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Cris Vanoosterum, Pros. Atty., Leonard J. Malinowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Atty. Gen., Pros. Attys., Appellate Service, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 71241.

Donald G. Jennings, P.C., Mark A. Otto, Manistee, for defendant-appellee in No. 71241.

WILLIAMS, Chief Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

We granted leave to appeal in these five cases limited to the issue whether a defendant's inculpatory statement is inadmissible per se if induced by a law enforcement official's promise of leniency. 417 Mich. 1036, 1037, 1038, 1040, 335 N.W.2d 469 (1983). In People v. Jones, 416 Mich. 354, 331 N.W.2d 406 (1982), cert. den. 460 U.S. 1084, 103 S.Ct. 1775, 76 L.Ed.2d 347 (1983), this Court was confronted with substantially the same issue. This Court, however, divided equally over the proper resolution of that issue. We now seek to resolve this split and the existing controversy between the per se test and totality of circumstances test.

We would adopt parts of both tests in favor of a test that we find to be more consonant with the law and logic. We would hold that under Const.1963, art. 1, Sec. 17, a statement induced by a law enforcement official's promise of leniency is involuntary and inadmissible, if there was a promise of leniency and that promise caused the defendant to confess. In determining whether a promise of leniency exists, the relevant inquiry is whether the defendant reasonably understood the official's statements to be a promise of leniency. In determining whether that promise caused the defendant to confess, we will ask whether the promise was one relied upon by the defendant in making his decision to offer inculpatory statements, and whether it was one that prompted him in fact to give those statements. If the answer to all of the foregoing inquiries is affirmative, the defendant's statements are involuntary and inadmissible. If the answer to any of the questions is negative, the defendant's statements are admissible.

II. FACTS
People v. Conte

Augustino Conte, originally charged with conspiracy to murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.157a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.354(1), first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2), went to trial only on the first-degree murder charge. This charge arose from the killing of a woman who was a major prosecution witness in another case against David Ovegian, one of defendant's accomplices in this case. A jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and Mr. Conte was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 104 Mich.App. 73, 304 N.W.2d 485, and we granted leave to appeal.

On September 18, 1977, the defendant and Gary Wolfe were arrested in connection with the robbery of the Arts and Gems jewelry store and the murder of its owner and assistant manager. Defendant's live-in girlfriend, Kathleen Stevenson, was arrested on the following day in connection with the same crime. The defendant later saw Ms. Stevenson in the booking area of the police station. She was emotionally upset, and defendant learned that she had been arrested for her alleged involvement in the Arts and Gems jewelry store murder and robbery. Defendant again encountered Ms. Stevenson on his way to an interrogation room. She was seated next to a detective's desk crying. Ms. Stevenson was then placed in an adjacent interrogation room where defendant claimed he could hear her.

While the evidence is contradictory, it seems that at some point the defendant offered to cooperate in the solving of four other cases if the authorities would release Ms. Stevenson and not charge her with any crime. The ultimate agreement reached was that defendant would solve four other crimes and the prosecutor would release Kathleen Stevenson and not charge her in connection with any of those four cases or the Arts and Gems crime, provided that she was not present at the scene of any of those crimes and did not pull the trigger in any homicide. This agreement was conditioned on the defendant's and Ms. Stevenson's taking of polygraph tests to confirm the absence of Ms. Stevenson's involvement as above noted. Defendant confessed in accordance with the agreement to the crime for which he is charged in this case.

Following a Walker hearing, the district court denied defendant's motion to suppress the confession. The motion was renewed in the circuit court and granted. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The case went to trial and proceeded as noted above.

People v. Meaker

Timothy L. Meaker was charged with one count of first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2). A jury found the defendant guilty as charged and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment on the felony-firearm conviction and life imprisonment on the first-degree murder conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed and denied rehearing. We held the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal in abeyance pending decision in People v. Jones, supra, and subsequently granted leave to appeal.

The defendant's conviction arose out of the May 12, 1978, shooting death of Dennis Rudy, whose body was discovered on a gravel road in Brownstown Township, Wayne County. The victim had been shot seven times. The police learned that the defendant had been together with the victim on the night of the shooting and, hence, focused their investigation on him. On May 13, 1978, the defendant voluntarily appeared at a state police post and gave a statement. He admitted being with the victim on the night of his death, but said that he left the deceased alive in the company of two unnamed males. On May 25, 1978, while still not in custody, defendant again voluntarily came to a state police post and gave another statement which was slightly different from the first statement. Later, defendant admitted that he was present when the deceased was shot, but stated that someone else shot him. Defendant indicated, however, that he set Mr. Rudy up for $2,000.

Defendant agreed to take a polygraph examination on June 8, 1978. Prior to the taking of that test, the examiner took a statement from the defendant to prepare for the test. Although it differed in some particulars, the defendant related a story to the examiner similar to the second one given on May 25th.

Defendant was ultimately charged, and a preliminary examination was scheduled for June 19, 1978. On that date, the police, the prosecuting attorney, and the defendant through his attorney entered into an agreement whereby defendant would be given a reduced bond, but would be required to take an additional polygraph test and stay away from the victim's family.

The defendant met with an officer on June 26, 1978, for the purpose of conducting a "warm up" interview. At this time, the defendant gave yet another version of the events that transpired on the eve of May 12, 1978. The defendant confessed that he had shot the deceased following an argument and scuffle. Defendant indicated that he acted in self-defense. Finally, on June 28, 1978, the defendant appeared for the polygraph examination. A preliminary interview was conducted, during which defendant gave a story similar to that given on June 26, except that defendant stated that the deceased pulled a shotgun on him. The defendant subsequently refused to take the polygraph.

The defendant's pretrial motion to suppress the statements was denied by the trial judge after a Walker hearing. Following trial, defendant appealed the propriety of the trial court's ruling only as to the June 28, 1978 statement. The Court of Appeals ruled that the June 28 statement was involuntary and stated that on retrial the June 26 statement should likewise be excluded because it suffered from the same deficiencies as the June 28 statement. It is the propriety of this ruling that is before this Court.

People v. Bradley

Jerry Bradley was jury convicted of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • State v. Griffin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 22, 2021
    ...409, 412 (4th Cir. 1968) ("[t]he perspective from which the statements must be viewed is that of the defendant"); People v. Conte , 421 Mich. 704, 739–40, 365 N.W.2d 648 (1984) ("[I]t is from [the] defendant's perspective that we will view the alleged promises. ... The inquiry will be wheth......
  • Wright v. State, 61
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1984
    ...at 420. The Michigan Supreme Court has recently addressed this issue and its opinion provides sound reasoning. In People v. Conte, 421 Mich. 704, 365 N.W.2d 648 (1984), the court consolidated five appeals limited to the issue of "whether a defendant's inculpatory statement is inadmissible p......
  • People v. Benson, S004763
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 31, 1990
    ...(i.e., in accordance with the suspect's actual understanding); or purely neither and partly both? (See generally People v. Conte (1984) 421 Mich. 704, 739-740, 365 N.W.2d 648 [choosing what is evidently a hybrid standard, viz., "whether the defendant is likely to have reasonably understood ......
  • People v. Tanner
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 23, 2014
    ... 496 Mich. 199 853 N.W.2d 653 PEOPLE v. TANNER. Docket No. 146211. Calendar No. 7. Supreme Court of Michigan. Argued Nov. 6, ...Conte, 421 Mich. 704, 721, 365 N.W.2d 648 (1984) (citations omitted). ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT