People v. Fordyce, 3
Decision Date | 24 August 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 3,3 |
Citation | 378 Mich. 208,144 N.W.2d 340 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Charles J. FORDYCE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald L. Reisig, Pros. Atty., Ingham County, James R. Ramsey, Asst. Pros. Atty., Ingham County, Lansing, for plaintiff and appellee.
Willingham, Learned, Cote & Spanos, East Lansing, for defendant and appellant.
Before KAVANAGH, C.J., and KELLY, BLACK, SOURIS, SMITH, O'HARA and ADAMS, JJ.
Upon this appeal, defendant claims (1) a right to be advised of an absolute constitutional right to remain silent and (2) a right to be advised of the right to counsel at the time when he was being held after arrest and prior to judicial proceedings charging him with breaking and entering in the night time with intent to commit a larceny. C.L.1948, § 750.110 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.305).* The larceny occurred about 3 a.m., September 9, 1963. Defendant was found in the building. Although Fordyce was advised any statement must be voluntary and could be used against him, he was not advised of the two rights here claimed. The police officers who apprehended him obtained oral admissions at the time of his arrest. Fordyce signed a typed confession later the same day. Except as stated above, there is no dispute as to the voluntariness of defendant's confession.
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, held:
On June 20, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, held that the guidelines set forth in Miranda are available only to persons whose trials had not begun as of June 13, 1966. Fordyce was tried in circuit court for Ingham county by jury trial beginning April 20, 1964. On April 23, 1964, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
The Supreme Court of the United States stated in Johnson, supra:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Marsh
...2, for divergent holdings but good discussions of the policies underlying prospectivity in Miranda. See, also, People v. Fordyce (1966), 378 Mich. 208, 211, 144 N.W.2d 340, where the Court noted the disruption of judicial administration which would result if new trials could be granted on t......
-
People v. Maxson
...in criminal cases); People v. Woods, 382 Mich. 128, 169 N.W.2d 473 (1969) (custodial interrogation procedures); People v. Fordyce, 378 Mich. 208, 144 N.W.2d 340 (1966) (custodial interrogation procedures). In Sexton, we considered the following three factors to determine whether a new rule ......
-
People v. Shirk
...was admitted in evidence a defendant is now automatically entitled to a Walker-type hearing. See, for example, People v. Fordyce (1966), 378 Mich. 208, 144 N.W.2d 340. 'Under normal appellate procedures, since defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceeding in which he ......
-
People v. Whisenant
...The Michigan Supreme Court has also previously clearly enunciated the law on this point in question in the case of People v. Fordyce (1966), 378 Mich. 208, 144 N.W.2d 340. The Court stated (p. 211, 144 N.W.2d p. 'On June 20, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Johnso......