People v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 20 June 2012
• Docket Number: COA No. 301645.,Docket No. 144983.
• Citation: 491 Mich. 938,815 N.W.2d 129
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Samuel Lee ELLIOTT, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

491 Mich. 938
815 N.W.2d 129

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Samuel Lee ELLIOTT, Defendant–Appellee.

Docket No. 144983.
COA No. 301645.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 20, 2012.

Prior report: 295 Mich.App. 623, 815 N.W.2d 575

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address whether, and, in light of Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012), under what custodial circumstances, a parole officer not acting in concert with police is required to provide the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), before questioning an in-custody parolee who, during police questioning, has previously invoked his right to counsel under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), about an offense giving rise to an alleged parole violation, if the parole officer's testimony concerning the parolee's responses to such questioning is to be admissible at the trial for that offense.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, and the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue in this case may move the Court for leave to file briefs amicus curiae.