People v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 28 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 905,No. 1,905,1
• Citation: 143 N.W.2d 182,3 Mich.App. 605
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellee. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 182

143 N.W.2d 182

3 Mich.App. 605

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellee.

Cal. No. 905.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

June 28, 1966.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty. Wayne County, Detroit, for appellant.

Sheldon Otis, Detroit, for appellee.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and GILLIS and McGREGOR, JJ.

McGREGOR, Judge.

This is a prosecutor's appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for a new trial and excluding defendant's alleged confessional statements.

Defendant Louis Roberts was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. After being found over for trial following his preliminary examination, defendant moved to quash the information because it was based on certain alleged confessional statements which were admitted at the preliminary examination. From an adverse ruling, defendant sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which affirmed by an equally divided vote. People v. Roberts (1961), 364 Mich. 60, 110 N.W.2d 718.

On February 6, 1962, the jury impaneled to hear the cause could not agree upon a verdict and the Court entered an order declaring a mistrial and discharged the jury. A second trial resulted in a similar jury disagreement and order of mistrial, on June 14, 1962. A third trial was commenced on November 14, 1963, and on November 27, 1963, a jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. On January 13, 1964, defendant was sentenced to serve a term of 15--35 years. Defendant timely filed a motion for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. During the pendency of said motion, decisions were rendered in Jackson v. Denno (1964), 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, and People v. Walker (1965), 374 Mich. 331, 132 N.W.2d 87. In consequence thereof, the trial court ordered defendant returned to court for the purpose of hearing testimony relating to the admissibility of his alleged confessional statements.

During the course of said hearing, the following testimony was adduced: In the month of May, 1959, the Detroit police were investigating the death of Patricia Cioffi. At the time, Louis Roberts was 15 years of age. In the course of investigation, Louis Roberts was questioned by a member of the Detroit police Youth Bureau. On May 26, 1959, the youth officer took Roberts to the police homicide bureau, and after some questioning there, Roberts was released. On June 16, 1959, a team of Detroit detectives arrested Roberts at his home in the early morning hours. When the police arrived at his home he was asleep, but his grandmother awakened him. The police informed Roberts and his grandmother that they wanted to take him downtown for questioning. Roberts' grandmother was not told she could or should go along, nor was she told she could call an attorney. The police officers claimed they wanted to check out Roberts' story as given to another team of detectives, on May 26, 1959, although no statements of Roberts, made at the time, were in conflict with his earlier statements. Roberts was taken directly to an interrogation room at police headquarters and was questioned by the officers, but at no time was he locked up with other prisoners.

On that day, a detective Rozek interrogated Roberts from about 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. During the questioning Roberts' shoes were removed. Rozek told Roberts several times he was lying, that he (Rozek) wanted the truth, and that he didn't believe Roberts' denial of guilt. The apparent purpose of Rozek's questioning was to obtain a confession from Roberts, as the prime suspect. Pictures of the nude body of the deceased victim were lying on a nearby table. Roberts was never advised of his rights to counsel, to remain silent, or that incriminating statements could be used against him in a criminal trial. When Roberts allegedly confessed to Detective Rozek, no youth officer was present. After the alleged confession, made to Detective Rozek, Roberts was taken to the prosecutor to formalize the earlier confession, later to the alleged scene of the crime, then to his home, and eventually to the juvenile detention home. A youth officer was present on the latter journeys, but he never advised Roberts of any rights, although the officer was charged with a duty to stand in the shoes of parents, and to aid juveniles who have difficulty with the police. The confession given to Detective Rozek was testified to by the detective at a juvenile waiver proceeding.

'A disposition of any child under this chapter, or any evidence given in such case, shall not in any civil, criminal or any other cause or proceeding whatever in any court, be lawful or proper evidence against such child for any purpose whatever, except in subsequent cases against the same child under this chapter.'

C.L.1948, § 712A.23 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27.3178 (598.23)).

'In case a child under the age of 17 years is taken into custody or detained, such child shall not be confined in any police station. * * * ' C.L.1948, § 712A.16 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27.3178 (598.16)).

The trial court did not rule upon the validity of the use of the alleged confession in the trial court after its use in the probate court proceedings.

'Whenever any child under the age of 17 years is arrested with or without a warrant, such child shall be taken Immediately before the juvenile division of the probate court of the county wherein the offense is alleged to have been committed and the officer making the arrest shall Immediately make and file or cause to be made and filed, a petition against such child as provided by Chapter 12A of Act No. 288 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being sections 712A.1 to 712A.28 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 and the said court shall proceed to hear and determine the matter in like manner as provided by said act, as amended. If, during the pendency of any criminal case against any child in any court in this state having criminal jurisdiction, it shall be ascertained that said child is under the age of 17 years, it shall be the duty of the court before whom such case is pending to Immediately transfer such case, together with all papers connected therewith to the juvenile division of the probate court of the county wherein the offense is alleged to have been committed: Provided, however, That in any case where a child over the age of 15 years is charged with a felony the judge of probate of the county wherein the offense is alleged to have been commited, may, after investigation and examination, and upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, waive jurisdiction; whereupon it shall be lawful to try such child in the court having general criminal jurisdiction in such offenses. If, during the pendency of any criminal case against any child in any court of record other than a probate court, it shall be determined that said child is 17 or 18 years of age, then the said court may in its discretion if the court finds that any of the conditions exist as outlined in subsection (d) of section 2 of chapter 12A of Act No. 288 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being section 712A.2 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, the child or his or her representative, transfer such case together with all papers connected therewith to the juvenile division of the probate court of...