People v. Kroll

• Decision Date: 31 March 2022
• Docket Number: 357538
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER MILAN KROLL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER MILAN KROLL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 357538

Court of Appeals of Michigan

March 31, 2022

Charlevoix Circuit Court LC No. 19-022813-FH

Before: Redford, P.J., and Sawyer and Murray, JJ.

Murray, J.

In this interlocutory^[1] appeal, the primary issue concerns the admissibility of defendant's videotaped statement made during an interview arising from defendant's report of a sexual assault pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 34 USC 30301 et seq., with the answer to that question resolving whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of making a false report of a felony, MCL 750.411a(1)(b). We hold that the statement was admissible, that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss, and therefore affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In July 2019 defendant was a prisoner in a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facility, serving sentences for first-degree retail fraud and possession of methamphetamine. MDOC transferred defendant on a writ to the Charlevoix County jail on July 23, 2019, for proceedings related to pending criminal charges. After court proceedings on July 23 defendant was placed into a temporary holding cell, and the next morning he was put into a cell with nine other inmates.

On the morning of July 24, 2019, the jail administrator went to the detective's office in the sheriff's department and advised Detective Cody Wheat that there was a PREA complaint about a sexual assault in the jail. Detective Wheat, who was unfamiliar with PREA, treated the investigation as a normal sexual assault complaint, and arranged to interview defendant that same morning. The interview was recorded by Detective Wheat's body camera.^[2]

Because defendant was incarcerated, at the start of the interview Detective Wheat read defendant his Miranda warnings^[3] and, after defendant indicated that he understood his rights, Detective Wheat asked defendant whether he agreed to speak with him. Defendant never expressly agreed to waive his constitutional rights to remain silent or wait for an attorney, but he continued to talk to Detective Wheat, essentially without Detective Wheat asking any questions pertaining to what occurred in his jail cell.^[4] Defendant continued his colloquy with Detective Wheat, setting forth his general concerns about jail safety and harassment. After detective Wheat informed defendant that he was there in response to his PREA complaint, the following exchange occurred:

A. Okay. That's what I'm explaining to you.

Q. Yep. And then-but at the same time, I mean, if you don't want to speak to me, you know, -

A. I think I just did.

Q. Right. But at the same time, like, I need-I'm here to try to help you, -

A. Yeah.

Q. -okay. That's why I'm here. I'm not here to cover stuff up. When we got the report back in my office, -

A. Yeah.

Q. -that you wanted to speak to somebody reference PREA, I was-I'm up here-

A. Yeah.

Q. -like ready to go and talk to you, okay?

A. I asked to be put in isolation this morning when they took my mat and stuff for no reason. I mean, they didn't even come and say, "Hey, don't do that. That's one of our rules."

Q. Right.

A. It was, they rushed in, three people, tied-you know, shackled me, told me to get on my knees, shackled me, one person behind me. I don't know if- there's something that was in the vicinity of my anal region that shouldn't have been there when he shackled me. I feel like-and this is-and whether it was to get a reaction out of me, a jerking motion or anything, but I'm conscience [sic] of this. I'm conscience [sic] of what's going on, so I'm very careful what I say, what I do. I've been on my P's and Q's. You know what I mean?

Detective Wheat eventually summarized to defendant what defendant had told him about what led to the officers coming into his jail cell. Defendant then elaborated to Detective Wheat that when the jail officers "put the restraints on . . . my knees are up against the thing, he spreads my-this leg more and something's in-you know what I'm saying, it's inside my ass crack." Defendant said that he was wearing clothing and that it "felt like something oblong like a finger or-I hate to say it, but a penis or-you know what I mean, it could have been something on his belt. I don't know."

As noted, until this point Detective Wheat had not asked defendant any questions, and only tried to explain the process. However, towards the end of the interview the following exchange took place:

Q. How long-when that officer was behind you and they were putting the chains on, you felt that object behind you-

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -how long do you think that was actually touching you for?

A. It wasn't-it was seconds. It wasn't minutes. I mean, it was probably 20 to 30 seconds time.

Q. Okay.

A. You know. And it was continuous. It was like a- Q. It was just there?

A. Yeah, it was just there.

Q. Okay.

A. And then it backed up-when I got uncomfortable and kind of moved my leg, he pulled my leg out more and it was like deliberately there, you know. It was a-it was almost like a deliberate-you know, -

Q. Now, you were kneeling. Now, when you say you were kneeling, were you kneeling on like one of those benches in the cell?

A. Yeah. There's a nitch-

Q. Okay.

A. -probably about this high.

Q. Yep.

A. So, they told me-you know, which I complied, they said put your knees up against that-

Q. Yep.

A. -and face the wall.

Q. And you said the officer actually took your one leg and actually-

A. Yes

Q. -pushed it further out?

A. Yeah.

[Tr I, 22-23.]

Defendant confirmed that this was the only "PREA related incident" and that it was a sexual contact that had occurred.

Immediately after completing the interview, Detective Wheat contacted the jail administrator and requested that he pull the body camera footage and retrieve the jail cell footage of the alleged incident. After watching the three videos that same day, Detective Wheat determined that no contact occurred between defendant and the officers, ^[5] and in fact none of the officers came anywhere close to defendant's buttocks area. He also did not see any of the officers spread defendant's legs further apart. The information was submitted to the prosecutor the same day, which led to the charge at issue.

A jury trial was held over two days in March and August 2020.^[6] The jury viewed the video recording of the interview, heard the voicemail of defendant's PREA report, and listened to testimony from various witnesses. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to whether defendant had made a false report of a sexual assault, so the trial court declared a mistrial.

The trial court scheduled a retrial on the false report charge. Defendant's new counsel filed a motion to dismiss the charge and a motion to exclude the video of defendant's statement to Detective Wheat. In both motions, defendant asked the court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to preclude the prosecution from introducing: (1) defendant's recorded statement at trial; (2) any evidence of statements made by defendant for purposes of filing and pursuing his request for a PREA investigation; and (3) any allegations that defendant was reporting a crime at the time of his statements. Defendant supported his motion with the argument that the PREA applies to a county jail, that the interview was made relative to a PREA complaint, and that the statements made during the interview were confidential and could not be used as a basis for the charge. He also asserted that Detective Wheat coerced his statement in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by misrepresenting to defendant that the interview was being conducted relative to defendant's PREA report.

The prosecution posited several arguments in response, including that no authority was cited for the proposition that PREA applies to a county jail system, or that prosecuting defendant for making a false report was a violation of his First Amendment rights. The prosecution also argued that defendant was not coerced into making the statements, and that defendant's statements were not confidential because the PREA provides that an inmate can be disciplined for filing a false PREA report.

The trial court denied defendant's motions, articulating from the bench the following:

The whole confidentiality issue involves protecting the inmate from, you know, retribution within the-within the administrative operation of the prison or the jail, and keeping the allegation, you know, separate and quiet from the target of the investigation so that the-the-the reporter's not harmed. There's nothing about somehow giving, you know, an exemption from admissibility in a criminal prosecution.

I did not find in any way the argument to be persuasive that the defendant has First Amendment rights that were violated or the First Amendment would somehow-would-there's no First Amendment right to make a false allegation of rape to a law enforcement officer. So the First Amendment does not apply.

[Defendant's] Fifth Amendment rights were not violated in any way that- that was argued in the-the-the motions before the Court. And I finally don't find that the defendant's statements to Detective Wheat were confidential and are therefore inadmissible in this criminal case.

I find that the defense is mis-applying the administrative procedures of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. And so the-the-the motions on grounds presented are-are denied. . . . . I actually went through and read all these statutes and case law and I . . . found . . . the arguments are taken out of context and the . . . cases don't support the . . . arguments made in the motion and the brief. So the-the motions of the

...