People v. Omell
| Decision Date | 23 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 2822,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael OMELL, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Harry R. Bockoff, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and ROBERT B. BURNS and FENLON, * JJ.
The defendant, Michael Omell, appeals from his circuit court conviction of the crime of embezzlement, C.L.1948, § 750.174 (Stat.Ann. § 28.371).
The defendant in connection with his employment as a branch manager of a furnace supply company handled money received by the company from its customers. The officers of the parent company became aware of a shortage in the branch office and hired private detectives to investigate.
Suspecting him of being responsible for the shortage, the detectives confronted the defendant at his office. After some discussion the defendant, at the request of the detectives, wrote a seven-page letter addressed to defendant's employer. In the letter, the defendant admitted his wrong-doing and attempted to rationalize his conduct.
Prior to trial the People filed notice of intent to use in evidence, in the nature of a confession, the letter written by the defendant.
Defendant then filed a motion to suppress the alleged confession. After a pretrial hearing the trial judge concluded that the confession was voluntary and the defendant's motion to suppress was denied.
The confession, marked as People's Exhibit 12, was received in evidence at trial.
The defendant upon conviction by the jury was sentenced by the court to serve a term of not less than two years or more than ten years in the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson.
Defendant in his appeal alleges and argues eight issues. We find, however, that only two issues are properly before this Court. The other claims of error, which were not raised for consideration by the trial court, are not before us. People v. Willis (1965), 1 Mich.App. 428, 136 N.W.2d 723.
It was discovered by the People that the court had made findings of fact and had rendered an opinion on defendant's motion to suppress the confession. This opinion had not been made part of the record. It was not discovered until after briefs had been filed with and oral arguments made to this Court.
When the People learned that the trial court had made findings of fact and rendered an opinion on defendant's motion to suppress the confession, they moved to add the transcript thereof to the record. This motion was considered and granted by this Court July 16, 1968.
With the addition to the record of the transcript of the trial judge's findings, procedural requirements of getting a confession to the jury were met. People v. Walker (1967), 6 Mich.App. 600, 149 N.W.2d 912.
The question is whether private investigators came within the purview of Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 977, or other cases requiring constitutional warnings prior to the taking of a statement.
While Michigan courts, so far as we know, have not passed upon this issue, other jurisdictions have uniformly held that a person not a police officer, or not acting in concert with or at the request of police authority, is not required to extend constitutional warnings prior to the eliciting of an incriminating statement.
Schaumberg v. State (1967), 83 Nev. 372, 432 P.2d 500, 501 is cited by appellee as one of the cases in point:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Holliday
...supra, 282 F.Supp. 1009; Hutchison v. Patterson, D.C., 267 F.Supp. 433; Johnson v. Stucker, 203 Kan. 253, 453 P.2d 35; People v. Omell, 15 Mich.App. 154, 166 N.W.2d 279; Beal v. Turner, 22 Utah 2d 418, 454 P.2d 624; Riggins v. Rhay, 450 P.2d We also note even in the federal parole system, w......
-
City of Grand Rapids v. Impens
...is not required to extend constitutional warnings prior to the eliciting of an incriminating statement". People v. Omell, 15 Mich.App. 154, 157, 166 N.W.2d 279 (1968). In Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921), the Supreme Court explained that the origin ......
-
People v. Tubbs
...Havey (1968), 11 Mich.App. 69, 160 N.W.2d 629. Neither may defendant raise this issue for the first time on appeal. People v. Omell (1968), 15 Mich.App. 154, 166 N.W.2d 279. (4) Whether defendant's confession was rendered inadmissible because his parents were not in the room with him when h......
-
United States v. Antonelli
...(Syracuse City Ct. 1967); and Schaumberg v. State, 83 Nev. 372, 374, 432 P.2d 500, 501 (1967); accord, People v. Omell, 15 Mich.App. 154, 166 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Ct. App., Div. 2, 1968); State v. Valpredo, 75 Wash.2d 368, 450 P.2d 979, 982 (1969). See also People v. Wright, 249 Cal.App.2d 692,......