People v. Green, Docket No. 25298

Citation74 Mich.App. 351,253 N.W.2d 763
Decision Date29 March 1977
Docket NumberDocket No. 25298
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Early GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Renfrew, Moir & Burgett, Union Lake by Dennis J. Kuirsky, Pontiac, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., L. Brooks Patterson, Pros. Atty., by Thomas S. Richards, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P. J., and CAVANAGH and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., JJ.

J. H. GILLIS, Presiding Judge.

On October 19, 1974, Phyllis McPhail left her home at approximately 8:30 p. m. to go the Hilton Market in the City of Pontiac. She took her six-month old son with her. When she failed to return, her husband conducted a search and found the automobile in the market parking lot with the keys in it and the child asleep. The police were called.

Two days later, Phyllis McPhail's body was found floating in the Clinton River approximately one mile from the Hilton Market. Wounds were found in her back and chest.

Defendant was charged with the murder of Phyllis McPhail. A jury trial was commenced on May 12, 1975. On May 19, 1975, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. Defendant appeals as of right raising four issues. Additional facts, where necessary, will be related within the discussion of the issues pertinent thereto.

On October 24, 1974, subsequent to his arrest and after being given the Miranda warnings, 1 defendant was interrogated by a detective from the Pontiac Police Department. The questioning took place near the location where the victim's body was found. Defendant denied having any knowledge of the murder.

On October 28, 1974, defendant was again interrogated by the same detective. Defendant had called the detective to discuss with him alleged harassment by the guards at the jail. Defendant was again given the Miranda warnings and again denied knowledge of the murder; however, defendant did give the detective a detailed account of his whereabouts on the evening of the murder.

On January 29, 1975, subsequent to the preliminary examination, the detective, along with the assistant prosecutor handling the case, interviewed defendant at the jail. This meeting was held pursuant to defendant's request. Defendant's attorney was not informed of this meeting. Defendant was given the Miranda warnings after which he admitted knowledge of the alleged murder weapon and of the fact of a killing, although he denied being the perpetrator of the crime.

The trial judge conducted a Walker 2 hearing and determined that the statements made during the course of the interviews would be admissible at trial. At trial, the statements were admitted into evidence. Defendant's first claim is that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the statements made by defendant during the January 29th interview. It is defendant's contention that statements made during an interview in which the prosecutor participated in absence of defense counsel are inadmissible. Although there is a question as to whether the issue has been properly preserved for appeal, we will assume for argument's sake that it has been preserved.

There is no question that but for the presence of the prosecuting attorney, the statements were admissible. People v. Moore, 51 Mich.App. 48, 50-51, 214 N.W.2d 548 (1974); People v. Jordan, 34 Mich.App. 360, 367-369, 191 N.W.2d 58 (1971), lv. den., 386 Mich. 776 (1971), cert. den., 406 U.S. 908, 92 S.Ct. 1616, 31 L.Ed.2d 818 (1972).

Disciplinary Rule 7-104 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons and Disciplinary Rules as adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court states: 3"(A) During the course of his representation of a client a lawyer shall not:

"(1) Communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so.

"(2) Give advice to a person who is not represented by a lawyer, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of his client."

This rule is similar to Canon 9 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provided in pertinent part:

"A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel."

The Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics of the Michigan State Bar interpreted Canon 9 as follows:

"On balance, we hold it improper for a prosecuting authority to interview a defendant in a criminal case without the knowledge and consent of his attorney of record." Opinion 202, 46 Mich.State B.J. 29, 30 (May 1967).

There is no question in our minds that this interpretation applies to Disciplinary Rule 7-104. In case of doubt, we now take this opportunity to call to the attention of the prosecutors of this state as well as to the remainder of the State Bar that it is improper and unethical for a prosecuting attorney to communicate with a criminal defendant without first notifying defense counsel and obtaining his consent regardless who initiates the communication.

Clearly, the prosecutor's conduct in this case was improper. However, the question is not one of ethics but rather one of the admissibility of the evidence obtained during the course of the complained of interview. The trial judge determined that the statements were voluntarily given and defendant makes no claim that they were not. Rather, he contends that the meeting resulted in constitutional infringements. 4 Although there is a dissenting minority, ethical violations such as the one in this case have not as of yet resulted in a suppression of evidence. See Judge (now Justice) Levin's dissenting opinion in People v. Patterson, 39 Mich.App. 467, 198 N.W.2d 175 (1972), and cases cited therein. We decline the invitation to join that minority.

Defendant's second contention is that the trial judge committed reversible error in admitting into evidence, over objection, certain photographs of the victim. Defendant argues that because his defense was alibi and the nature of the wounds and the manner in which they were inflicted were stipulated at trial that the photographs had no probative value and served only to inflame and prejudice the jury.

It is well settled that the admission of photographic evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. People v. Eddington, 387 Mich. 551, 198 N.W.2d 297 (1972). However, if the photographs serve no purpose other than to excite passion and prejudice in the minds of the jurors, then their admission is deemed to be error. People v. Falkner, 389 Mich. 682, 209 N.W.2d 193 (1973). There is no per se rule that stipulations negate admissibility. The prosecution has the burden of establishing each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury must be instructed to consider each element regardless of stipulation. People v. Reed, 393 Mich. 342, 224 N.W.2d 867 (1975), cert. den., 422 U.S. 1044, 1048, 95 S.Ct. 2660, 2665, 45 L.Ed.2d 696, 701 (1975). We have examined the photographs in this case. They depict the corpus delicti. We find nothing gruesome or inflammatory about them. Defendant was not prejudiced.

In answering questions posed by the prosecutor during cross-examination, defendant's chief alibi witness mentioned that he had submitted to a polygraph examination. Defendant claims reversible error.

Defendant is correct that generally evidence of polygraph examinations is inadmissible. People v. Frechette, 380 Mich. 64, 155 N.W.2d 830 (1968); People v. Rodgers, 66 Mich.App. 658, 239 N.W.2d 701 (1976). However, for the following reasons, which are explained in People v. Whitfield, 58 Mich.App. 585, 228 N.W.2d 475 (1975), we find no error in this case. Defense counsel did not object nor request a cautionary instruction. The reference to the polygraph examination was made by a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Lytal
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 17 d1 Março d1 1980
    ...N.W.2d 175 (1972), lv. den. 387 Mich. 795 (1972), People v. Moore, 51 Mich.App. 48, 50-51, 214 N.W.2d 548 (1974), People v. Green, 74 Mich.App. 351, 355, 253 N.W.2d 763 (1977), aff'd on other grounds, 405 Mich. 273, 274 N.W.2d 448 None of defendant's claims of error justify reversal. AFFIRM......
  • People v. Green
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 26 d5 Janeiro d5 1979
    ...one judge dissenting, that an ethics violation alone does not warrant or require the suppression of voluntary statements. 74 Mich.App. 351, 253 N.W.2d 763 (1977). We On October 19, 1974 at approximately 8:30 p. m., the victim left her home and drove to a nearby market to purchase some milk.......
  • People v. Allen
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 8 d2 Março d2 1988
    ... ... Green, 74 Mich.App. 351, 357, 253 N.W.2d 448 (1979). The prosecution bears the burden of establishing each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury must be instructed to consider each element regardless of stipulation. Id. See also People v. Reed, 393 Mich ... ...
  • People v. Fisher
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 9 d3 Agosto d3 1995
    ...within the discretion of the trial court. See People v. Hall, 83 Mich.App. 632, 640, 269 N.W.2d 476 (1978); People v. Green, 74 Mich.App. 351, 357-358, 253 N.W.2d 763 (1977). Thus it is necessary to weigh the probativity or relevance of the evidence. Specifically, relevant evidence is any f......
  • 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