People v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 22 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 65,J,65 |
| Citation | 364 Mich. 60,110 N.W.2d 718 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Louis ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant. an. Term. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Henry Heading, Detroit, for defendant and appellant.
Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Samuel Brezner, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant, a 15 year old Negro boy, is charged with murder. This is an appeal, before trial, from the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to quash the information. The motion was based on the claim that defendant's confession of guilt, received on preliminary examination through the testimony of the police officer to whom it was made, was not freely and voluntarily given. On appeal defendant contends (1) that the voluntariness of the confession presents a question of law for the court and not a question of fact for a jury when, as he contends here, the facts in connection therewith are undisputed, and (2) that the undisputed facts show that the confession was not free and voluntary and, inferentially, that without it there were insufficient proofs to warrant binding defendant over for trial.
(1) Defendant cites People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N.W. 539, and People v. Prestidge, 182 Mich. 80, 148 N.W. 347, for the proposition that the question whether a confession was voluntary is for the court, if the matter is clear and the testimony on the subject is undisputed, but if there is ground for doubt, the court may leave it to the jury to determine whether the confession should be considered. This is their holding. In both cases cited, however, the trial had been had, resulting in convictions. Here there has been no trial. When it is had there will be time enough for the trial court, as the question arises, to determine, on the state of the record then before it or on such further testimony on the subject as may then be adduced, whether the voluntariness of the confession should then be decided by the court or left for jury determination. From the court's ruling at such time, opportunity for application for leave to appeal will still be available. (2) Should the confession have been excluded at preliminary examination and defendant discharged at its conclusion? It does not appear that defendant objected to introduction of testimony of the confession. All that the record discloses on the subject is that at the end of the examination, in response to the prosecutor's motion to bind over, defense counsel said merely that he had 'token opposition' to that motion because he felt that the confession had been obtained through inducement by the police officer. As already stated, the subsequent motion to quash in the trial court was planted on the same ground.
We cannot agree that on the record at the conclusion of the examination the magistrate should have disregarded the confession and declined to bind over or that the trial court should have quashed the information on the ground that the confession had been admitted improperly before the magistrate. The pertinent testimony of the police officer, given at the examination, follows:
'Q. Now, did Louis Roberts tell you that he knew anything about the deceased, Patricia Cioffi, as to her decease? A. Yes, sir, he admitted that he stabbed and killed the girl.
* * *
* * *
'A. He told me that on May 21, at ten o'clock * * * he observed this girl across the street. He followed her for a while, and then he got in between a couple of homes, and he accosted her and asked her for a cigarette, and she did not give him no cigarette, and he, * * * or, his nearness forced the girl against a tree, and he started making love to her and kissing her, * * *
'A. And then he had her against the tree, and he was rubbing his body against her body, and kissing her, when somebody from across the street asked her if there was any help needed down there, and the girl got scared, and started screaming, and he stabbed her once, and indicating about the heart, and then he ran away from there.
* * *
* * *
'Q. Well, did your investigation reveal that he had been arrested before June 16th? A. Yes, he had been.
' Q. And he has been interrogated previously? A. Well, I don't know whether you would call it arrest, but he had been interrogated by another team of detectives.
'Q. And he had been released, is that right, at that time? A. Yes, sir, that is right, and his grandmother was right there with him all the time.
'Q. So then the second time, as far as you know, that he was at the Police Headquarters, was on the 16th of June? A. I brought him there.
'Q. And that is the day that you and Mr. Rouell brought him down, is that right? A. That is right, yes sir.
'Q. And Mr. Rouell is your partner, is that right? A. That is right.
'Q. Now, the second time he was taken down, was the grandmother asked to come with him? A. No.
* * *
* * *
'Q. All right, and then you questioned him from around nine o'clock (a. m.) until when? A. Until about twelve o'clock (noon).
* * *
* * *
'Q. Were you with him constantly, at all times, from nine o'clock until twelve o'clock? A. Just about almost all the time, but I wouldn't say constantly. I may have walked out, or go down, or take care of a phone call, or something else, while he sat in the office there, but that was all.
'Q. I see. And shortly after you arrived at the Police Headquarters, you asked Louis Roberts,--or, you took his shoes off, is that right, one or the other? A. Yes, sir, that is right.
'Q. Were you ever alone with him during the time between nine o'clock and twelve o'clock? A. Yes.
* * *
* * *
'Q. When you first started questioning him, he denied the killing, is that right? A. Oh, yes.
'Q. And you kept questioning him, because, for some reason or other, you didn't believe him is that right? A. That is right.
'Q. And you kept telling him, 'Stop lying, and come on and tell me the truth', is that right? A. I wouldn't doubt it that I said to him, 'Stop lying, and tell me the truth.'
* * *
* * *
'Q. Now, after you had been in the room with him for some time, and there was no one in there but you with him, did you tell him that he had a long time before him and that he was a young man, and that he was somewhat handsome? A. That is right.
* * *
* * *
'Q. And did you also tell him that it would be better for him if he would confess? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. And did you tell him you would take him to the Juvenile Home there? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. And while you were along with him, did you show Louis Roberts a nude picture of the deceased, lying on the slab in the Morgue? A. Yes.
* * *
* * *
'Q. Now, when he allegedly confessed, were you alone with him then? A. Yes.
* * *
* * *
'Q. And how long after the alleged confession was it before you took him to the Prosecutor's Office. A. As soon as I possibly could take him upstairs. I called the Prosecutor, and went right upstairs with him.
'Q. Did you ask for a specific prosecutor, or did you just want any prosecutor? A. I took Louis with me, and I went up there looking for Mr. Kent, and I saw he wasn't there, so I saw Mr. Pentolino, and I asked him, I said, 'Mr. Pentolino, could you take a statement?' And he said, 'Yes', and we went right in there immediately then.
* * *
* * *
'Q. Now, when you talked to Mr. Pentolino, were you in the presence of Louis Roberts? A. To Mr. Pentolino?
'Q. Yes. A. Oh, yes, he was right with me.
'Q. And did you brief him on what had happened between yourself and Louis Roberts? A. That is right.
'Q. And did you remain during the taking of the formal statement? A. That is right.
In the absence of all evidence on the subject a confession is presumed to have been voluntarily made and when the confessor alleges the contrary he is called upon to at least rebut such presumption. People v. Barker, supra. Here there is no evidence whatsoever to rebut the presumption. The testimony of the police officer, on the contrary, supports the presumption. The motion to quash was, therefore, properly denied.
Affirmed and remanded for trial and other necessary proceedings.
SOURIS, Justice (information quashed, remanded for further proceedings).
Early one morning, while still in bed, 15-year-old Louis Roberts was arrested by two Detroit policemen for the murder of a young woman. Testimony of one of the police officers of defendant's oral admissions made subsequent to his arrest constituted the only evidence offered at the preliminary examination by the people linking defendant to the murder. From that testimony the examining magistrate found probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the murder and bound him over to the Recorder's Court for the city of Detroit for trial. Upon issuance of the information, defendant moved that it be quashed, which motion was denied, and this appeal was thereupon taken upon leave granted. The testimony of the admissions made by defendant was the sole basis of the people's showing of probable cause at the examination, and the resulting information cannot stand if such evidence be excluded. Accordingly the question for decision is whether these incriminating statements were properly admitted in evidence by the examining magistrate.
In this state children under the age of 17 years are afforded special legislative immunities from, and protection against, police detention and interrogation in the manner disclosed by this record. In its wisdom the legislature has decreed that special efforts be exerted by those specially designated therefor to protect the rights of those least...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Magee
...circumstances of this case does not violate the federal court's criteria of reasonableness in police procedure. In People v. Roberts (1961) 364 Mich. 60, 110 N.W.2d 718, it was contended that the confession of a 15-year old boy arrested for murder was inadmissible where the confession was o......
-
People v. McCager
...Foster, 211 Mich. 486, 179 N.W. 295; People v. Podolski, 332 Mich. 508, 52 N.W.2d 201, and opinion for affirmance in People v. Roberts, 364 Mich. 60, 61, 110 N.W.2d 718. What we have here, however, is a confession claimed to be made inadmissible not by physically or psychologically oppressi......
-
People v. Williams
...573, 575-576, 226 N.W.2d 565 (1975), lv. den. 394 Mich. 751 (1975).9 149 Mich.App. 568, 577, 386 N.W.2d 594 (1986).10 364 Mich. 60, 68-69, 110 N.W.2d 718 (1961). This case was followed by the same case reported in 3 Mich.App. 605, 143 N.W.2d 182 (1966), supra.11 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.......
-
People v. Jordan
...to this case is that Judge Heading, prior to taking the bench, was counsel for Louis Roberts in a prior appeal, reported at 364 Mich. 60, 110 N.W.2d 718 (1961). Judge Heading addressed the same issue in the Supreme Court as was later considered by this Court, but the earlier case was an app......