People v. Dean

• Decision Date: 30 September 1981
• Docket Number: Docket No. 51849
• Citation: 110 Mich.App. 751,313 N.W.2d 100
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan DEAN, Defendant-Appellant. 110 Mich.App. 751, 313 N.W.2d 100
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 100

313 N.W.2d 100

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathan DEAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 51849.

110 Mich.App. 751, 313 N.W.2d 100

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Sept. 30, 1981.

Released for Publication Dec. 22, 1981.

[110 MICHAPP 753] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Atty., Appeals, and Larry L. Roberts, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Norman R. Robiner, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P. J., and KAUFMAN and BORRADAILE, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). He was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction and given a life term of imprisonment for the murder conviction. Defendant appeals as of right and raises three challenges to his conviction.

Defendant first alleges that the trial court committed error requiring reversal by finding that a statement given to the police by the defendant was voluntary and that evidence of the statement was admissible. In this statement, defendant admitted to having shot three persons in the head after having tied their hands behind their back. Defendant was apparently upset at having purchased some narcotics that did not live up to the defendant's expectations from one of the deceased persons. Defendant's request for the return of the money he used to purchase the narcotics was apparently unsuccessful and led to the fatal shootings.

[110 MICHAPP 754] A separate Walker (People v. Walker, (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331, 132 N.W.2d 87 (1965)), hearing was conducted and both defendant and the officer who transcribed his statement testified. Upon hearing the testimony, the lower court determined that the defendant's statement was voluntary and that evidence of the statement was admissible in his trial. Subsequently, the interrogating officer was permitted to read the defendant's transcribed statement, in which he admitted shooting three persons.

This Court reviews a lower court's determination of voluntariness by looking at the totality of the circumstances and will not reverse a trial court's finding unless it is clearly erroneous or unless this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. People v. Terlisner, 96 Mich.App. 423, 292 N.W.2d 223 (1980); People v. Emanuel, 98 Mich.App. 163, 295 N.W.2d 875 (1980); People v. Wesley, 103 Mich.App. 240, 303 N.W.2d 194 (1981).

From the totality of the evidence adduced in the Walker hearing, we do not conclude with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the lower court in determining that defendant's statement was voluntary. Most, if not all, of the defendant's allegations concerning the adverse nature of the police interrogation were specifically denied by the interrogating officers who were involved in the case against defendant. Where the testimony of the interrogating officers and the defendant differed, we note that the trial court was in a better position to judge the relative credibility of these witnesses than we are. This Court gives great deference to a lower court's finding following a Walker hearing. People v. Hummel, 19 Mich.App. 266, 172 N.W.2d 550 (1969).

[110 MICHAPP 755] We also reject defendant's contention that the length of time he was detained by the police indicates that his confession was coerced. Even if we assume, arguendo, that the defendant's detention was illegal, ¹ defendant has failed to convince this Court that the delay was employed as a tool to extract defendant's confession. See People v. Johnson, 85 Mich.App. 247, 271 N.W.2d 177 (1978).

We secondly reject defendant's argument on appeal that error requiring reversal was committed through the admission of an unduly suggestive in-court identification which defendant alleged had no independent basis from a pretrial lineup. Defendant's argument on appeal is not well framed. While defendant contends that the in-court identification made by a particular witness was improper since there was no showing that it was independent from that witness's pretrial lineup identification, a review of the record indicates that this witness did not make a positive in-court identification. If defendant's argument on appeal is reinterpreted to suggest that reversible error was committed when the plaintiff was permitted to elicit testimony from this witness concerning his pretrial lineup identification, we still reject defendant's argument.

As in the first issue raised by the defendant, this Court reviews a lower...