People v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 07 January 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 74620
• Citation: 138 Mich.App. 163,360 N.W.2d 158
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Verneida MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 158

360 N.W.2d 158

138 Mich.App. 163

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Verneida MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 74620.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 11, 1984.

Decided July 27, 1984.

Released for Publication Jan. 7, 1985.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Civ. and Appeals, and Andrea L. Solak, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

Thomas M. Loeb, Oak Park, for defendant-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C.J., and T.M. BURNS and MEGARGLE ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The people appeal by leave granted from a determination that defendant's statements to police must be suppressed from evidence as the fruit of an arrest without probable cause.

In this case, defendant challenged the admissibility of her confession to the police at her preliminary examination. The examining magistrate held that her confession should be suppressed, because it was the product of an arrest without probable cause. Defendant was nonetheless bound over on a second-degree murder charge. After an evidentiary hearing, the Recorder's Court judge also determined that defendant was arrested without probable cause and ordered her confession to be suppressed.

The decision of the trial court and the arguments of both parties are based on the testimony of police officer Lloyd Clemens. Clemens testified that he had worked in the homicide section of the Detroit Police Department for 13 of his 18 1/2 years on the force. On March 11, 1983, at about 8 a.m., Clemens responded to a call concerning a homicide in the vicinity of 12687 Blackstone in the City of Detroit. He found a dead body on the median across from that address. The deceased had suffered multiple injuries over most of his body and it appeared as if someone had tried to cut off his legs with an instrument which was not extremely sharp. A large amount of blood which was still wet and had not yet congealed was on and around the body.

Shortly after 8 a.m., Clemens and other police officers began to conduct a neighborhood survey. Clemens observed drag marks, blood, and what appeared to be an attempt to clean up blood across the street from the body leading to the front door of defendant's residence. He saw marks on the sidewalk, the sidewalk leading to the front porch, the grass adjacent to the sidewalk, the front porch, its steps and the doorway of defendant's house. He saw diluted blood and other indications that the area of the porch and steps had recently been washed. A garden hose was present which appeared to have been used quite recently; Clemens felt that it was so cold that morning that the water would have frozen if it had been standing long before he arrived. As he approached the front door, he observed half of a bloody footprint in the doorway itself.

Defendant answered his knock on the door. She indicated that she lived in the house and asked Clemens to come inside. As he did, he observed the other half of the bloody footprint in the doorway. As he walked in, he noticed that the carpeting in the living room was extremely wet. He observed what appeared to be blood on a curtain, a chair, a man's shoe and the baseboard. He told defendant about the body across the street and asked her if she had heard anything during the night or had any knowledge of what had happened. She replied, "No". Several children were present in the house and were being cared for by defendant. Defendant's sister-in-law was found to be sleeping in the basement at the time. Officer Clemens asked defendant to accompany him downtown. On appeal, the prosecutor does not challenge the determination of the trial judge that this was an arrest.

The Recorder's Court judge ruled that the arrest was based primarily on defendant's mere presence at the scene of the crime. He found that a number of other circumstances pointed very strongly in her direction and gave rise to a strong suspicion that she had something to do with the crime or knew something about the crime. Absent an indication of some affirmative conduct on her part, however, he found that this was merely an arrest based on suspicion and for the purpose of investigation. He concluded that defendant was arrested without probable cause.

On appeal, the judge's determination that probable cause was lacking is challenged. The existence of probable cause to arrest depends in every case upon the peculiar circumstances confronting the arresting officer. People v. Orlando, 305 Mich. 686, 689, 9 N.W.2d 893 (1943). A court reviews the officer's determination of probable cause by asking whether a man of reasonable prudence and caution (not a legal scholar) would determine whether the person arrested had committed a felony. People v. Harper, 365 Mich. 494, 501, 113 N.W.2d 808 (1962). The reviewing court must determine whether facts available to the officer at the moment of arrest would justify a fair-minded person of average intelligence in believing that the suspected person had committed a felony. People v. Oliver, 417 Mich. 366, 374, 338 N.W.2d 167 (1983). A reviewing court will not isolate facts or beliefs from their surrounding circumstances in determining the existence of probable cause. Harper, supra, 365 Mich. p. 500, 113 N.W.2d 808.

On appeal, the prosecutor argues that probable cause existed to arrest defendant as a principal in the murder, as an aider and abettor, or as an accessory after the fact. If there was probable cause to believe that defendant was involved in the offense and that her involvement constituted a felony, the arrest was proper. We agree with the claim that it is not necessary to specify the one felony...