People v. Summers, Docket No. 3422
| Decision Date | 31 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 3422,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 166 N.W.2d 672,15 Mich.App. 346 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Lee SUMMERS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Albert Summer, Weller, Summer & Feder, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAVANAGH, P.J., and LEVIN and BEER *, JJ.
On November 28, 1958, the defendant, Henry Lee Summers, was convicted by jury verdict of the first-degree murder of Barbara Watkins. Two written confessions were introduced at the trial over objection. One of the two written confessions was given to police detectives, the other to the prosecutor.
In 1965 the defendant was granted a Walker hearing 1 concerning the voluntariness of the confessions. On October 8, 1965, the judge who conducted the hearing filed a lengthy opinion holding that both confessions were freely and voluntarily made and there was no error in their introduction into evidence during defendant's 1958 trial.
On this appeal we are required to 'examine the entire record and make an independent determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness.' Davis v. North Carolina (1966), 384 U.S. 737, 741, 742, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 1764, 16 L.Ed.2d 895, 898. See, also, Clewis v. Texas (1967), 386 U.S. 707, 708, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 1339, 18 L.Ed.2d 423, 426; Greenwald v. Wisconsin (1968), 390 U.S. 519, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 77; People v. Hamilton (1960), 359 Mich. 410, 418, 102 N.W.2d 738; and People v. Pallister (1968), 14 Mich.App. 139, 165 N.W.2d 319; and the discussion of the clearly erroneous rule in 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p. 596.
At 2:45 a.m. on November 7, 1957, the defendant was stopped on the street by police officers. He appeared to be concealing items under his topcoat and had dry blood on his face. His right knuckles were cut and bloody. He appeared to have been drinking. He was found to be carrying a radio, an electric clock, a lady's watchband, a coin purse, and a set of keys, all in a blood-spattered pillow case. He was arrested and held on suspicion of breaking and entering. The place of arrest was approximately three-quarters of a mile from the scene of Mrs. Watkins' murder.
Shortly after the defendant was arrested, the neighborhood police station to which he was taken received word that the Watkins' apartment was in disarray, that there was blood on Mrs. Watkins' bed and that she was missing. A search commenced. Her nearly nude body was discovered near the apartment building at approximately 7 a.m.
At 6 a.m. the defendant was questioned regarding the then unexplained disappearance of Mrs. Watkins. During the questioning he was confronted with an acquaintance, one James Davis. The two were among the last to see Mrs. Watkins alive. There was testimony at the trial that all three had been drinking alcoholic beverages together shortly before her apparent hour of death.
Davis said he left the defendant with Mrs. Watkins. Conversely, the defendant told the police Davis was still with Mrs. Watkins when he, the defendant, departed their company.
The police brought Davis and the defendant together. The defendant was asked to repeat his charge that Davis was still with Mrs. Watkins when the defendant left her. The defendant obliged, whereupon Davis struck the defendant. The testimony was in dispute whether the police left the room after requesting the defendant to repeat the charge and how quickly the police intervened to separate the two. Both Davis and the defendant testified that the police left the room but this was denied by the police.
At the preliminary examination, at the trial, and at the Walker hearing, the defendant asserted he was beaten by police officers at the station house to which he was taken when apprehended.
The following considerations are relevant to the claim that the statements were involuntary:
(a) The defendant claimed he was beaten by police officers. This they denied.
(b) He also charged he was threatened by police officers. This too was denied by several officers, but one of the officers at the station house where he was first taken testified that he didn't recall whether he had made threats, that he may have and conceded that he may have threatened other accused persons on other occasions. 2
(c) Defendant was struck by James Davis who defendant asserts was deliberately turned loose on him by the police officers. The same police officer who could not remember whether he threatened the defendant conceded that Davis struck the defendant but maintained that he, the officer, intervened immediately. He testified that he did not expect Davis to strike the defendant when he brought them together, that his attention was to have them confront each other after they had both been made aware of their contradicting statements. He knew that both had been drinking prior to their arrests.
(d) The defendant's clothing was taken away from him and replaced with coveralls. He was not supplied with a new pair of shoes and accompanied the detectives from police headquarters to the prosecutor's office barefooted on a cold day. 3
(e) It was conceded that the defendant was not advised of his right to remain silent or of his right to counsel. 4
(f) At the time of his arrest the defendant was 22 years of age and had been in Detroit about 5 months visiting relatives. Defendant said that during his childhood he suffered many injuries on his head, and there was medical testimony that brain damage might have been caused thereby. Defendant attended ungraded classes in grammer school. He never actually passed any certain grade and did not graduate from grammer school. He did not attend regular junior high or high school classes; he attended a trade school. Both the people's and the defendant's psychiatric witnesses testified that the defendant was mentally ill. 5
(g) Shortly before his arrest the defendant had been drinking heavily. 6
(h) No effort was made by the police to communicate with the defendant's relatives. There was a dispute whether telephone privileges were available to him. 7
(i) Although the defendant was arrested on November 7, 1957, he was not taken before a magistrate until November 12, 1957, when the preliminary examination was conducted. 8
Some time after 8:00 a.m. and before 9:30 a.m. of the morning he was arrested the defendant was taken from the neighborhood station house to the homicide division at main police headquarters downtown. It is the defendant's claim that the alleged mistreatment at the neighborhood station house softened him up to the point that he had no will to resist after he was taken downtown and confronted by detectives in a small room.
The detectives obtained a written confessional statement in a 22-minute interview commencing at 9:55 a.m. and concluding at 10:17 a.m. Immediately thereafter the defendant was taken across the street to the prosecutor's office where he gave a lengthy confessional statement commencing at 10:45 a.m.
Among the first questions asked by the prosecutor and the defendant's responses were:
'Q. And are you going to tell me these things of your own free will?
'A. I have no choice, got to tell you of my own free will.
'Q. Well, you have a choice to tell me or not to tell me but do you want to tell me what happened and answer my questions?
'A. Yeah, I will tell you.
'Q. All right. How have you been treated by the police since you have been in custody?
'A. How was I treated?
'Q. How have you been treated?
'A. Oh, they beat the hell out of me.
'Q. When did they beat you?
'
The defendant then proceeded to relate his version of the events leading up to Mrs. Watkins' death. After the statement was more or less complete the defendant was asked about the earlier statement which he had given the detectives. He conceded that he had signed such a statement and that those officers had treated him fairly. The questioning continued:
'Q. Well, did you tell Harris (one of the 2 detectives to whom the statement was given) what happened last night?
'A. He beat the hell out of me, I had to tell them what happened.
'Q. Who beat the hell out of you?
'A. I don't know, some old short guy.
'Q. Was it Harris?
'A. I don't know, man.
'Q. Was it this officer here?
'A. No, it was not him. I got kicked, I got stomped when I was in the building here. * * *
'Q. Now, Henry, what you have told me, is that the truth as to what happened last night, all of it?
'A. I guess so, I don't know.
'Q. Well, is it?
'A. I can't swear on it.
'Q. I'm sorry?
'A. I can't swear on it.
'Q. What part can't you swear to?
'A. None of it.
'Q. Is it all a lie that you have told me?
'A. I am going to tell you like it is.
'Q. All right.
'A. I done got whipped and banged around enough here, so anything I can say--so you can take it as you want, but I will get my lawyer--I will deny anything I say.
'Q. That's what you intend to do is get a lawyer?
'A. Yes, that's what I intend to do.
'Q. You understand that I want you to tell the truth?
'A. I am going to tell you about the D.A.'s in New York. You are arrested--
'Q. (Interposing) I don't want you to tell me about the D.A.'s in New York. What I want to know is what you have told me just now the truth?
'A. Yeah.
'Q. It is?
'A. Yes.
'Q. Is it, Henry?
'A. Yeah.
'Q. Well then, why are you going to deny it when you get a lawyer?
'A. Because in New York, the D.A. comes up there--
'Q. (Interposing) No.
'A. Can't I say that? The D.A. winks his eye at the cop and they take you out and beat the hell out of you and bring you back and make you tell a lie.
'Q. Well, now, tell me again, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...(1960), 359 Mich. 410, 418, 102 N.W.2d 738; People v. Pallister (1968), 14 Mich.App. 139, 141, 165 N.W.2d 319; People v. Summers (1968), 15 Mich.App. 346, 348, 166 N.W.2d 672. In People v. Shaw, Supra, our Court reversed the trial judge's determination that the defendant had consented to a ......
-
People v. Gilbert, Docket No. 15536
...upon the province of the jury. Michigan has long recognized the critical role confessions play in criminal trials. People v. Summers, 15 Mich.App. 346, 166 N.W.2d 672 (1968). A properly preserved error that crippled the defendant's ability to challenge a confession cannot, in light of this ......
-
People v. McClendon, Docket No. 14998
...to examine the entire record and make an independent determination as to the ultimate issue of voluntariness. People v. Summers, 15 Mich.App. 346, 166 N.W.2d 672 (1968); People v. Stanis, 41 Mich.App. 565, 200 N.W.2d 473 (1972); People v. Coffey, 42 Mich.App. 683, 202 N.W.2d 456 The transcr......
-
People v. Lasley
...confession case, in a footnote to the preceding statement. Add this fact to the statement of this Court in People v. Summers (1968), 15 Mich.App. 346, 356, 166 N.W.2d 672, 678: '* * * Where an involuntary confession has been introduced at trial, the defendant is entitled to a new trial even......