People v. Morgan, Docket No. 7344
Decision Date | 24 June 1970 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 7344,No. 1,1 |
Citation | 24 Mich.App. 604,180 N.W.2d 508 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Franklin MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Kasoff, Young, Gottesman & Kovinsky, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and McGREGOR and AGER *, JJ.
The pertinent facts are extracted from the certified concise statement of the material facts and proceedings, viz.:
The question dispositive of the principal issue is whether or not a police officer is precluded from testifying at a later prosecution that the defendant stepped forward when the officer, prior to any Miranda 1 warnings to the persons assembled before him, asked of the crowd, 'Who is the driver of that truck?'
The identity of this defendant was not known to the police officer, and the officer had not yet begun to focus accusatorily on this defendant in order to seek information from him. The officer was confronted by approximately 50 to 75 persons, and his question was addressed to the group and not specifically to this defendant. The record does not show that the officer had any reason to suspect Morgan as a perpetrator of a crime. Defendant contends that Michigan statutes require him to report that he was the driver of the vehicle to the nearest police officer on pain of a misdemeanor in the event that he failed to do so. The purpose of the Michigan accident report statute 2 is to apprise the police that an accident has occurred, and to furnish statistical information as to the number and cause of accidents. 3
Defendant relies upon People v. Gilbert (1967), 8 Mich.App. 393, 154 N.W.2d 800 in which the Court decided that incriminating admissions, such as those involved in the instant case, made in the course of making an accident report as required by statute, were not admissible in evidence. In the Gilbert case, the defendant was charged with manslaughter for negligently driving his automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The investigating officer testified that when he arrived at the scene, shortly after the accident, he noticed that the defendant appeared very much disturbed and detected the aroma of intoxicating beverages on the defendant's breath. About one-half hour later, at the hospital, the officer questioned Gilbert. The Court, in its decision, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Chandler, Docket No. 25351
...added.) This Court has held such principles are equally applicable to a criminal proceeding against a driver. People v. John F. Morgan, 24 Mich.App. 604, 180 N.W.2d 508 (1970). Defendant contends, however, that an earlier decision of this Court held to [75 MICHAPP 589] the contrary as to cr......
-
People v. Schmidt, Docket No. 129916
...has occurred and provide them with statistical information concerning the number and causes of accidents. People v. Morgan, 24 Mich.App. 604, 606, 180 N.W.2d 508 (1970); M.C.L. Sec. 257.624(1); M.S.A. Sec. 9.2324(1). The question presented by this case is whether, in a prosecution for a vio......