People v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 25 October 1968
• Docket Number: No. 2,Docket No. 4105,2
• Citation: 165 N.W.2d 337,14 Mich.App. 207
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilford Gary ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 337

165 N.W.2d 337

14 Mich.App. 207

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilford Gary ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 4105.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Oct. 25, 1968.

Released for Publication March 11, 1969.

Charles G. Gibbons, Hillsdale, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James B. Parker, Pros. Atty., Hillsdale County, Hillsdale, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and FOLEY, ^* JJ.

FOLEY, Judge.

This case comes before us for review of defendant's conviction for the first degree murder of Maude Bondsteel. Defendant has been sentenced to a term of life in prison.

Maude Bondsteel, 81 years of age, was found in the living room of her home at 145 east South street, Hillsdale, January 23, 1967, at approximately 10 a.m. by a neighbor. The cause of death was suffocation by smothering. The victim's chest, ribs, and breastbone were crushed. In addition to these injuries, Mrs. Bondsteel had been stabbed in the abdomen with a fork causing damage to the liver. When the body was found the fork was still lodged in the abdomen. The death was determined to have occurred after 8 p.m. on January 22, 1967, or in the early morning of January 23, 1967.

At approximately 2:15 p.m. on January 23, 1967, state police officers visited the home of Nina McKibbins, who is the grandmother of the defendant, Wilford Gary Rogers, and sister-in-law of the victim, to obtain background information. During the course of a conversation between Mrs. McKibbins and the officers, Mrs. McKibbins advised the officers that on the night before she had a telephone conversation with the deceased at approximately 8 p.m. and that her grandson, the defendant, had visited the home of the deceased thereafter. Defendant then volunteered that he had been to the home of the deceased at approximately 10:30 p.m. Sunday, January 22, but did not receive a response. The officers then questioned the defendant who stated he was home on leave from the armed services and presented verification thereof upon the request of the officers. During the course of the interrogation, the defendant stated he did not gain entry to the deceased's home on the evening in question. The officers also requested defendant to turn over the clothes he wore on the evening of January 22 and he complied. The defendant also complied with the request of the officers to accompany them to the Hillsdale police station where his fingerprints were taken at approximately 2:35 p.m. on the same day. He was fingerprinted at the station and released at approximately 3 p.m. on the same day.

Defendant was formally placed under arrest for the murder of his aunt at approximately 8 p.m. on January 23, 1967. At that time he signed and executed a waiver of rights form, which was to be admitted into evidence at his trial, and thereafter made a statement to the police substantially conforming to the one made at his grandmother's home earlier in the day.

The evidence presented during trial against the defendant was entirely circumstantial. Among the evidence introduced against defendant were statements, later shown to be inconsistent with other proofs, made by him during the initial police interrogation at the home of Mrs. McKibbins. Also introduced by the prosecution were two photographs of Mrs. Bondsteel, as she was found after her demise. Other evidence included: fingerprints of defendant found inside decedent's home (a statement of defendant was also introduced to the effect that he had not been inside decedent's home in 15 months); public and head hair found on the decedent similar to that of defendant; certain fibers taken from clothing of defendant, which he admitted wearing on the evening of January 22, and which were identified as being similar to those taken from a blanket on the couch where deceased was found; defendant's face, back, and underneath his arms contained fresh scratches on January 23; a witness testified that he did notice these scratches on defendant's face during a visit by defendant at approximately 9:30 or 10 p.m. on the evening of January 22; defendant's statement that he received these scratches from a bush; and the area where the fingerprints, identified as defendant's, were found had been thoroughly scrubbed with water and detergent in September, 1966.

Although defendant raises several questions on appeal, only two have merit and will be considered in this opinion.

It is contended by the defendant that the state police officers, under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, were obligated to advise him of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment ¹ rights prior to the interrogation which took place in the home of his aunt on January 23, 1967 at approximately 2:30 p.m. He contends further that since the record clearly reflects that the officers failed to give the Miranda warning prior to or during such interview, statements elicited from him during such interview are inadmissible. In Miranda, supra, p. 477, 86 S.Ct. p. 1629, the Court stated:

'The principals 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. It is at this point that our adversary system of criminal proceedings commences, distinguishing itself at the outset from the inquisitorial system recognized in some countries. Under the system of warnings we delineate today or under any other system which may be devised and found effective, the safeguards to be erected about the privilege must come into play at this point. Our decision is not intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating crime.'

Before defendant's contention can be afforded substance under Miranda, the question that must be answered is whether defendant was in custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way during the initial interrogation by the state police.

It is now settled that Miranda has applicability in instances where a defendant is under 'custodial interrogation.' People v. Gilbert (1967), 8 Mich.App. 393, 154 N.W.2d 800. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to determine under what circumstances the statements of defendant were made. Here the initial police interrogation of defendant took place at the home of his grandmother and in her presence. The defendant volunteered that he had been at the deceased's home at approximately 10:30 p.m. while his grandmother was being interrogated. It was only after this statement that the state police officers interrogated him. The circumstances here are not analogous to the 'incommunicado interrogation' in the so-called 'police-dominated atmosphere' stressed in Miranda.

We conclude that prior to the time officers took defendant to the station for fingerprinting, he was not in custody nor was he deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Therefore, the statements made during this period are not excludable under Miranda. ² In reaching this decision, it should be made clear that we have not decided that a station-house interrogation is a prerequisite to the application of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to statements made by the accused to police officers. We have only ruled in this case that the circumstances of the initial afternoon police interrogation of defendant at the home of his grandmother do not come within the custodial edict of Miranda. See, also, People v. Gilbert, supra, United States v. Essex (ED Tenn.1967), 275 F.Supp. 393.

The second question we have considered is whether two color photo-slides showing the nude body of the victim were so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair and impartial trial.

The record discloses that the prosecution sought to introduce six or seven color photo-slides of the body of the deceased, all taken from...