People v. Walker

Decision Date30 October 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1,Docket No. 7906,1
Citation183 N.W.2d 871,27 Mich.App. 609
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Dean WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Raymond L. Miller, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and LEVIN and CHURCHILL, * JJ.

LEVIN, Judge.

The defendant, Roderick Dean Walker, was convicted by jury verdict of first-degree murder. 1 He contends that (1) incriminating clothing he was wearing while he was being interrogated at Detroit police headquarters was improperly seized and, therefore, should not have been admitted into evidence, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to show the deliberation and premediation required to increase the degree of the offense from second degree murder to first degree murder, and (3) there was instructional error. We affirm.

Walker was employed at a gas station managed by the victim, Joseph Risek. Shortly before Risek was killed he discharged Walker--Walker thought unjustifiably. On the evening the crime was committed Risek and Walker met at the gas station and an argument ensued. Later, when Risek left the station, they seemed to have patched up their differences and Walker drove off with Risek in Risek's automobile.

Risek and Walker left the station shortly after 9:00 p.m. Risek's body was discovered in his automobile at approximately 4:00 a.m. the following morning. Between 11:00 and 12:00 p.m., I.e., less than three hours after Risek and Walker left the station, passersby noticed the automobile at the location where it was later found containing Risek's body.

Walker testified that Risek dropped him off a few blocks from the gas station and that he then proceeded to his girlfriend's home and stayed there until about 11:15 p.m. when he left to go back to work at the gas station.

A witness testified that Walker said that he had been in an argument with Risek that night and had left him unconscious. Another witness testified that at 11:30 p.m. that night Walker said he had killed Risek.

Walker needed money to pay back some money his girlfriend's mother thought he had taken. Risek had over $500 with him when he left for the gas station that evening. When his body was found the money was gone. His body was lying face down with his hands bound behind him; his head had been bashed in, and a tire iron, which appeared to have traces of blood on it, was near the body.

It is apparent that there was ample evidence from which the jury could infer that Risek's murderer had deliberated and premeditated the crime.

It is claimed that the following portion of the judge's charge to the jury is defective because the reference to deliberation and premeditation was an afterthought and deemphasized:

'I charge you that if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Roderick Dean Walker killed Joe Risek as the result of cruelty or wickedness of the heart or recklessness of disposition, that the crime would be murder and that would be murder in the first degree, That is, if it was done with deliberation and premeditation. If it was done without deliberation and premeditation but with malice, it would be murder of the second degree.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The instruction was a correct statement of the law. Elsewhere in his charge the judge repeatedly emphasized the distinction between second degree murder and first degree murder and elaborated on the additional fact findings required to convict the defendant of the more aggravated offense. At the conclusion of the charge the judge gave both the people's and Walker's lawyers an opportunity to voice objections to the charge. None were expressed by Walker's lawyer. There was no instructional error.

Walker was at the gas station when investigating police officers drove in at 7:00 a.m. shortly after Risek's body was discovered. The police were aware that Walker was one of the persons with Risek when he was last seen alive. Walker was asked to account for his whereabouts during the hours the crime was committed. After he responded, the officers asked him and another person at the station to accompany them downtown to Detroit police headquarters for questioning. Within an hour of Walker's arrival at police headquarters an officer noticed what appeared to him to be blood on Walker's shoes. Walker was then placed under arrest for murder, the Miranda 2 warnings were given and the shoes and other clothing were taken. Upon scientific analysis the shoes and some of the other clothing were shown to be stained with human blood.

Walker's trial attorney objected to the admission of the clothing. A hearing was then conducted out of the jury's presence to determine whether Walker was actually arrested before his formal arrest, when the blood stains were spotted, and whether the police had probable cause to arrest him before the blood was seen. The judge did not rule when the arrest occurred or if there was probable cause to arrest before the formal arrest. He ruled that the clothing was admissible, but that he would not allow any questioning of the officers regarding any statements Walker may have made to them.

The defendant's trial and appellate lawyers contend that the clothing was inadmissible because it was taken from the defendant without benefit of counsel and because he was not given the Miranda warnings. The record shows, however, that Walker conceded that the Miranda warnings were given before the clothing was taken. More importantly and more to the point, the Miranda warnings are required to be given before custodial Interrogation, not as a condition precedent to the seizure of evidence. 3 An attorney need not be appointed for an accused person before evidence may be seized.

A more difficult question is whether the discovery in the police station that Walker was wearing bloodstained clothing was a 'fruit' of an unlawful detention requiring that the clothing evidence be suppressed.

Under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional infringement of an accused person's rights may be inadmissible at trial. In Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States (1920), 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319, 24 A.L.R. 1426, governmental officials illegally seized corporate books and documents. A court order was obtained requiring that they be returned but before returning them the governmental officials made photocopies and on the basis of the copies sought to subpoena the originals for use at the trial. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done, but, in so holding, the Court declared that the inhibition on the use of derivative evidence would not apply if it could be proven that the government learned of the evidence (p. 392, 40 S.Ct. 182) 'from an independent source.'

In Nardone v. United States (1939), 308 U.S. 338, p. 341, 60 S.Ct. 266, p. 268, 84 L.Ed. 307, the Court declared that while 'Sophisticated argument may prove a causal connection between (the primary illegality) and the Government's proof. As a matter of good sense * * * such connection may have become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'

And in Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, p. 488, 83 S.Ct. 407 p. 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, the Court declared that in deciding whether the causal connection between the primary illegality and the challenged evidence had become 'so attenuated as to dissipate the taint' it was not enough that the evidence 'would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'

Through these formulations the United States Supreme Court has cautioned against exclusion of all evidence traceable to illegal police activity, a warning which has not gone unheeded in the lower courts. The tendency of adjudication is to administer the fruits rule with great caution lest the effort to control police behavior free too many guilty persons.

We address ourselves to the question posed by the United States Supreme Court of whether the officers discovered the incriminating clothing at the police station by 'exploiting' an unlawful detention or by 'sufficiently distinguishable' means. Our conclusion that the means were 'sufficiently distinguishable,' that there was no 'exploitation,' makes it unnecessary for us to decide whether Walker's presence at the police station was an unlawful detention. 4

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine seeks to discourage unlawful police practices by depriving the people of advantage flowing from the 'primary illegality.' In applying the doctrine in particular cases, we are mindful that the exclusionary rule has its limitations as a tool of judicial control and that in some contexts 'the rule is ineffective as a deterrent. * * * Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. * * * (A) rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be used effectively to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.' 5

Various approaches have been taken by the courts in deciding whether in particular cases the people have taken advantage of or exploited the primary illegality. One test, suggested by some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • People v. Wagner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 28, 1982
    ...an illegal search and seizure and should have been excluded as 'fruits of the poisonous tree'. See, [114 MICHAPP 552] People v. Roderick Walker, 27 Mich.App. 609, 183 N.W.2d 871 (1970). The evidence indicated that defendant initially refused to make a statement and requested an attorney whe......
  • People v. Moore
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1974
    ...in Robinson, Gustafson and this case. Cf. People v. Trudeau, 385 Mich. 276, 279--281, 187 N.W.2d 890 (1971); People v. Walker, 27 Mich.App. 609, 183 N.W.2d 871 (1970).6 Contrast State v. Elkins, 245 Or. 279, 422 P.2d 250 (1966), and Caver v. Kropp, 306 F.Supp. 1329 (E.D.Mich., 1969).7 Cf. P......
  • People v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 7, 1978
    ...in Robinson, Gustafson and this case. Cf. People v. Trudeau, 385 Mich. 276, 279-281, 187 N.W.2d 890 (1971); People v. Roderick Walker, 27 Mich.App. 609, 183 N.W.2d 871 (1970)." 391 Mich. at 434-435, fn. 5, 216 N.W.2d at 774. (Emphasis Further, the Court noted: "While Const.1963, art. 1, § 1......
  • People v. Weaver
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 24, 1971
    ...of the principal, perhaps essential, witness against him was derived from the illegally-seized evidence. 5 In People v. Walker (1970), 27 Mich.App. 609, 617, 183 N.W.2d 871, 875, we ruled that in deciding whether derivative evidence, too, must be suppressed we had to consider 'whether it wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT