People v. Pantoja
| Decision Date | 09 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6309,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 28 Mich.App. 681,184 N.W.2d 762 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleuterio PANTOJA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
George T. Krupp, Azkoul & Krupp, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Johnston, III, Chief Appellate Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and BRONSON and MUNRO,* JJ.
After a jury trial in the circuit court of Kent county the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter. He appeals from such conviction on the grounds that the trial court erred in admitting certain statements and admissions of the defendant at the time of trial and that he was illegally arrested.
The facts in this case are: that in the late evening hours of Saturday, April 15, 1967, an injured man named Estel Ray Caldwell was found behind the 503 Bar located on South Division street in Grand Rapids by the owner of the bar; that at or about 11:30 p.m. the owner of the bar notified the police and shortly thereafter two police officers arrived. They found Caldwell lying in the alley in a pool of blood and ordered an ambulance, and Caldwell was taken to the hospital. The officers then talked to the owner of the bar who informed them that Caldwell had been keeping company with defendant's wife and that she and the defendant had been present in the bar that evening.
After advising the bar owner to call them if the defendant returned, the police went to the hospital to check on the victim's condition and there observed on Caldwell what appeared to be a stab wound. While at the hospital they received a phone call from the owner of the bar telling them that the defendant had returned and the police then returned to the bar. They asked the defendant to step into the bar's adjoining kitchen and storeroom and there talked to him. At first the defendant denied that he had been in a fight with Caldwell and the police, noticing blood on his shirt, asked him to open his coat which he did, after asserting that the blood was his nephews. After the officers noticed blood on his hand, defendant then told the police officers that he had a fight with Caldwell over Caldwell's relations with defendant's wife but denied stabbing Caldwell. The police frisked the defendant and searched the interior of his car parked in front of the bar. During this time the defendant was not advised of his constitutional rights and the police then told the defendant that the police department would contact him later. The police then went to the hospital where they were informed that Caldwell was dead. They returned to the bar and were advised by the lieutenant to take the defendant to the police station, which they did. At the police station the defendant was first advised of the Miranda 1 warnings and then questioned by a detective to whom the defendant then made a statement that was substantially the same as the one he had made earlier to the police officers at the bar. The defendant was then placed and remained in custody all day Sunday and on Monday morning another detective interrogated the defendant and obtained a third statement from him. Defendant was arraigned at 2:00 p.m. on Monday.
The trial court held that the first statement made to the police officers at the bar and the second statement made at the police station early Monday morning which was reduced to writing were admissible and ruled that the third statement made on Sunday was inadmissible because the arraignment was delayed for an unreasonable time in order to obtain a statement from the defendant.
With regards to the issue that defendant was unlawfully arrested defendant contends that mere suspicion does not constitute probable cause. It appears from an examination of the record in this case that the officers knew from their own observations that a man had been seriously injured from what looked like a knife would and that they had been told that the defendant had been in the bar and that the defendant's wife had been keeping company with the victim. When they talked to the defendant they could see what looked like blood on his shirt and the defendant admitted to having had a fight with the deceased. It seems clear from the facts that the officers had probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed; The arrest which was made following the defendant's statement to the detective at the police station was proper.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting the statement made to the police officers at the bar and the subsequent statement made to the detective at the police station are predicated on defendant's assertion that the case of Miranda v. Arizona requires that the police officers, before interrogating defendant at the bar, should have advised him of his rights as set forth in Miranda. It is admitted that no Miranda-type warning was given at that stage of the investigation. The defendant, however, overlooked that the Miranda decision does not prevent investigation of crime. The United States Supreme Court in Miranda, at p. 477, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1629 said:
'The principles announced today deal with the protection which must be given to the privilege against self-incrimination When the individual is first subjected to police interrogation while in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. * * *
'Our decision is not intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating crime.' (Emphasis supplied.)
On the facts here involved there was no question that the defendant was not in custody at the police station but was in fact in the storeroom kitchen at the bar. Further at that point, the police inquiry was still in the investigatory stage. It remains to be determined whether he was otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. State
...United States v. Knight, 261 F.Supp. 843 (E.D.Pa.1966); United States v. Littlepage, 435 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970); People v. Pantoja, 28 Mich.App. 681, 184 N.W.2d 762 (1970); State v. Long, 85 S.D. 431, 185 N.W.2d 472 (1971); State v. Hunt, 8 Ariz.App. 514, 447 P.2d 896 (1968); State v. Hal......
-
People v. Major, Docket Nos. 9666
...v. Herrera (1969), 19 Mich.App. 216, 172 N.W.2d 529; People v. Jones (1968), 12 Mich.App. 369, 163 N.W.2d 22; People v. Pantoja (1970), 28 Mich.App. 681, 184 N.W.2d 762; People v. Sansoni (1968), 10 Mich.App. 558, 159 N.W.2d 858; generally see, 5 Am.Jur.2d Arrest, §§ 22--25, pp 711--716; 1 ......
-
People v. Hooper
...right to remain silent have already been given.' See also People v. Smith, 30 Mich.App. 34, 186 N.W.2d 61 (1971); People v. Pantoja, 28 Mich.App. 681, 184 N.W.2d 762 (1970). We are aware of this Court's decision in People v. Jourdan, 14 Mich.App. 743, 165 N.W.2d 890 (1968), where it was hel......
-
State v. Holderness, 54407
...termed 'mere dicta' by the same court and abandoned. People v. Tubbs, 22 Mich.App. 549, 177 N.W.2d 622 (1970); People v. Pantoja, 28 Mich.App. 681, 184 N.W.2d 762 (1971). We have carefully examined the exhibits, the record and so much of the transcript as was not included in the record, and......