People v. Walker, 44
Citation | 132 N.W.2d 87,374 Mich. 331 |
Decision Date | 05 January 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Dell WALKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Samuel J. Torina, Grosse Pointe Park, for plaintiff.
Albert Best, Detroit, for defendant.
Before the Entire Bench.
By an equally divided Court, defendant's conviction of first degree murder was upheld in People v. Walker, 371 Mich. 599, 124 N.W.2d 761. Rehearing and reargument was granted.
In fairness to the circuit bench, the prosecuting attorneys of the State, the defense bar, and through them all, to the ultimate repository of our judicial responsibility--the citizenry of Michigan--we owe a duty to speak clearly of the effect of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908), handed down since our previous decision herein.
If we read Jackson v. Denno, supra, correctly the action of the trial judge in submitting the question of the voluntariness of defendant's confession to the same jury which was trying the issue of his guilt or innocence without first, on a separate record, making separate determination thereof is no longer a permissible rule of law. The question before us now is which of the 2 rules therein approved constitutionally by the United States Supreme Court is to be adopted in Michigan.
The question in Jackson v. Denno, supra, as here, was the admissibility of a confession claimed to have been involuntarily made. The New York State court, where Jackson was tried and convicted, admitted the confession under its rule. That rule 1 historically has been the rule of this State. Very simply stated it is: If under no circumstances the confession could be deemed voluntary, the trial judge was obligated to exclude it. If the evidence presented a fair question of fact as to its voluntary nature, the confession was received and the jury under proper instruction determined the question. The trial judge followed that rule. Defendant was convicted. He filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal district court. The writ was there denied and the court of appeals affirmed. Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court 'to consider fundamental questions about the constitutionality of the New York procedure governing the admissibility of a confession alleged to be involuntary.'
The Court then answered:
'Under the New York procedure, the evidence given the jury inevitably injects irrelevant and impermissible consideration of truthfulness of the confession into the assessment of voluntariness. Indeed the jury is told to determine the truthfulness of the confession in assessing its probative value. As a consequence, it cannot be assumed, as the Stein 2 Court did, that the jury reliably found the facts against the accused. This unsound assumption undermines Stein's authority as a precedent and its view on the constitutionality of the New York procedure. The admixture of reliability and voluntariness in the considerations of the jury would itself entitle a defendant to further proceedings in any case in which the essential facts are disputed, for we cannot determine how the jury resolved these issues and will not assume that they were reliably and property resolved against the accused. And it is only a reliable determination on the voluntariness issue which satisfies the constitutional rights of the defendant and which would permit the jury to consider the confession in adjudicating guilt or innocence.
'But we do not rest on this ground alone, for the other alternative hypothesized in Stein--that the jury found the confession involuntary and disregarded it--is equally unacceptable. Under the New York procedure, the fact of a defendant's confession is solidly implanted in the jury's mind, for it has not only heard the confession, but it has been instructed to consider and judge its voluntariness and is in position to assess whether it is true or false. If it finds the confession involuntary, does the jury--indeed, can it--then disregard the confession in accordance with its instructions? If there are lingering doubts about the sufficiency of the other evidence, does the jury unconsciously lay them to rest by resort to the confession? Will uncertainty about the sufficiency of the other evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt actually result in acquittal when the jury knows the defendant has given a truthful confession?
'It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a confession which a jury has found to be involuntary has nevertheless influenced the verdict or that its findings of voluntariness, if this is the course it took, was affected by the other evidence showing the confession was true. But the New York procedure poses substantial threats to a defendant's constitutional rights to have an involuntary confession entirely disregarded and to have the coercion issue fairly and reliably determined. These hazards we cannot ignore.
'As reflected in the cases in this Court, police conduct requiring exclusion of a confession has evolved from acts of clear physical brutality to more refined and subtle methods of overcoming a defendant's will.
Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206, 80 S.Ct. 274, 279 .
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Willing, Docket No. 251786.
....... B. Pretrial Motions And Substitution Of Counsel . Before trial, Willing moved for a Walker 5 hearing to exclude the statement he gave Lavin at the police station, and also moved for a finding that Lavin had entrapped him into agreeing to ...44 In refusing to apply harmless error analysis, the Court rejected the notion that the defendant's interests were adequately represented by his ......
-
Duncan v. State
...v. Gladden (Ore.), 396 P.2d 779; State v. Ortiz, 97 Ariz. 228, 399 P.2d 171; State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274, 394 P.2d 206; People v. Walker, 374 Mich. 331, 132 N.W.2d 87; People v. Perez, Cal.App., 42 Cal.Rptr. 161; Commonwealth ex rel. Gaito v. Moroney, 416 Pa. 199, 204 A.2d 758; People ex re......
-
People v. Wise
...assistance of counsel. First, he complains that defense counsel failed to request a hearing pursuant to People v. Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331, 132 N.W.2d 87 (1965), to attempt to have his statement to the police declared involuntary. However, not every such failure necessarily cons......
-
People v. Bladel
...wearing when he was first arrested.3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).4 People v. Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331, 132 N.W.2d 87 (1965).5 The court acknowledged that the lack of opportunity to consult with counsel before interrogation does affect t......