People v. Wright
| Decision Date | 09 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 107152 |
| Citation | 186 Mich.App. 566,465 N.W.2d 339 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Augustus WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. 186 Mich.App. 566, 465 N.W.2d 339 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[186 MICHAPP 566] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Jeffrey Caminsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
State Appellate Defender by Rolf E. Berg, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before CAVANAGH, P.J., and McDONALD and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.
[186 MICHAPP 567] PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. M.C.L. Sec. 750.317; M.S.A. Sec. 28.549; M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2). He appeals as of right. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant claims the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress his exculpatory statement made to police. He contends that his right to counsel was violated and that police conduct rendered his statement involuntary.
Defendant was arrested at about 5:00 a.m., five hours after the shooting. He was kept in various lockups that were without sleeping facilities. At 10:55 a.m. he was given his Miranda 1 warnings. He was informed that an attorney would be provided for him if he wanted one. He did not ask for an attorney. Defendant indicated he understood his rights and waived his right to counsel. The police denied defendant's requests to telephone his family.
Defendant consented to a search of his house. The investigating officer conducted the search and interviewed other witnesses before taking defendant's statement. While defendant was in custody, an attorney retained by his family went to the police station. He was told that defendant had been informed of his rights and did not wish to speak to an attorney. At 3:55 p.m., defendant gave an exculpatory statement to police. After the statement, the police told him that the attorney was at the station. Defendant was given only a can of juice and some water during the eleven hours of custody.
Defendant argues that the failure of the police to tell him earlier that an attorney was present interfered with and violated his right to counsel [186 MICHAPP 568] under the Michigan Constitution. Const.1963, art. 1, Sec. 17.
The United States Supreme Court ruled on a factual situation nearly identical to this one in Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). Considering the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the federal constitution and due process guarantees, it held the police need not inform a suspect of an attorney's efforts to reach him. To constitute a valid waiver of his constitutional rights, it must be determined (1) that a suspect's decision not to rely on his rights was uncoerced, (2) that he knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and (3) that he was aware of the state's intention to use his statement to obtain a conviction. Moran, at 422-423, 106 S.Ct. at 1141-1142.
However the Supreme Court recognized that individual states are free to adopt different requirements for police conduct as a matter of state law. Moran, at 428, 106 S.Ct. at 1144. Defendant urges us to impose a stricter standard on police conduct under the Michigan Constitution.
To support this proposition, defendant relies on People v. Cavanaugh, 246 Mich. 680, 225 N.W. 501 (1929). The defendant in that case was not only denied an opportunity to speak with his father and with a priest, he was not allowed to send for or employ counsel. Cavanaugh, at 688, 225 N.W. 501. The Cavanaugh case was decided before federal due process guarantees against involuntary confessions were ruled applicable to the states. Further, the Court in Cavanaugh did not hold that the defendant's confession was involuntary and therefore inadmissible. It ordered a new trial, because defense counsel was not allowed to examine witnesses concerning the circumstances surrounding the confession. Cavanaugh, at 689, 225 N.W. 501.
The Sixth Amendment of the federal constitution[186 MICHAPP 569] guarantees the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The Fifth Amendment right to counsel is a corollary to the amendment's stated right against self-incrimination and due process. People v. Buckles, 155 Mich.App. 1, 5 n. 6, 399 N.W.2d 421 (1986). The interrogation was not a criminal prosecution and thus involves the Fifth Amendment right. The Michigan Constitution's self-incrimination guarantee is construed no more liberally than the federal guarantee. People v. Burhans, 166 Mich.App. 758, 761, 421 N.W.2d 285 (1988). We decline to apply a more stringent standard than that in Moran.
Next, defendant argues that the totality of the circumstances tended to sap his power of resistance and self-control and rendered his statement involuntary.
Compliance with Miranda is necessary to establishing that a defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent, but it is not dispositive of the voluntariness issue. People v. Godboldo, 158 Mich.App. 603, 605-606, 405 N.W.2d 114 (1986). In determining the voluntariness of a statement, the trial court should consider all the circumstances, including the duration of detention and questioning, the defendant's age, intelligence, education and experience. It should consider his mental and physical state, whether he was threatened or abused, and whether there was unnecessary delay of arraignment. People v. Cipriano, 431 Mich. 315, 334, 429 N.W.2d 781 (1988). Intoxication from alcohol can affect the validity of a waiver, but is not dispositive. People v. Leighty, 161 Mich.App. 565, 571, 411...
To continue reading
Request your trial