People v. Lauderdale
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4979,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 169 N.W.2d 171,17 Mich.App. 191 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis LAUDERDALE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Roccy M. DeFrancesco, Benton Harbor, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Ronald J. Taylor, Pros. Atty., Berrien County, St. Joseph, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and HOLBROOK and T. M. BURNS, JJ.
October 17, 1967, defendant was convicted by jury verdict of the offense of robbery unarmed, C.L.1948, § 750.530 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.798), and he was thereafter sentenced. His appeal raises 3 issues, 2 of which relate to the admission of confessions. The remaining issue relates to an evidentiary hearing prior to trial concerning the confessions.
June 25, 1967, an elderly woman was robbed of her purse after she had been knocked down by some boys. July 8, 1967, defendant was arrested, interrogated and he admitted his part in the offense. During this interrogation, defendant and officer Watson were alone. July 9, 1967, defendant signed a waiver of rights and consent for interview and statement form and a typewritten confession in the presence of other officers. The form and confession were admitted at the preliminary examination over defendant's objection. Officer Watson testified at the preliminary examination, and on direct examination, testified to his name, occupation, acquaintance with defendant, date of his arrest and that he (Watson) saw defendant that day. On cross-examination, Watson testified he advised defendant of his rights before questioning him, and that defendant and Watson were alone during the interrogation. Watson gave no testimony at the preliminary examination that defendant had confessed.
At arraignment in circuit court, defendant acknowledged notice of the fact that the people proposed to use the oral and written confessions at trial and receipt of a summary of the oral confession and copies of the waiver form and typewritten confession.
Thereafter defendant moved to suppress the oral confession, the waiver of rights form and the written confession on the basis that the standards of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 had not been complied with. At the argument on this motion, defendant requested that it be decided on the basis of the testimony taken at the preliminary examination. This request was denied and the trial court proceeded with an evidentiary hearing. Defendant claims this was reversible error.
We could agree with defendant if his motion had been to quash the information because defendant's identity could not be established from the preliminary examination transcript absent the confessions, and they were improperly admitted over his objection. In this situation, the circuit court would have to rule on the motion on the basis of the preliminary examination transcript and without an additional evidentiary hearing because the circuit court would be judging the propriety of the action of the magistrate in binding defendant over for trial. This necessarily would have to be done on the basis of the information before the magistrate.
This is not the situation before us. Our situation is aptly stated in defendant's brief:
The device of an evidentiary hearing before trial on questions relating to the admissibility of confessions and admissions is designed for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McClendon, Docket No. 14998
...86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); People v. Baker, 19 Mich.App. 480, 488, 172 N.W.2d 892, 896 (1969); People v. Lauderdale, 17 Mich.App. 191, 195, 169 N.W.2d 171, 173--174 (1969). Thus, this Court is required to examine the entire record and make an independent determination as to the u......
-
People v. Kinnebrew
...trial judge was free to consider testimony in addition to that contained in the preliminary examination record. People v. Lauderdale, 17 Mich.App. 191, 169 N.W.2d 171 (1969). The defendant's motion to suppress is posited on the grounds that the search warrant's description of the premises t......
-
People v. Szczytko
...'that they were clearly erroneous.' GCR 1963, 517.1; People v. Walker, 6 Mich.App. 600, 149 N.W.2d 912 (1967); People v. Lauderdale, 17 Mich.App. 191, 169, N.W.2d 171 (1969); People v. Lasley, 21 Mich.App. 340, 175 N.W.2d 883 (1970); People v. Turner, 26 Mich.App. 632, 182 N.W.2d 781 (1970)......
-
People v. McClure, Docket No. 6257
...the Michigan case of People v. Limon, Supra, upon which he relies has been specifically overruled by the case of People v. Lauderdale (1969), 17 Mich.App. 191, 169 N.W.2d 171. The use of the statement of the defendant thus was not barred by any Miranda Did the trial court err in the instruc......