Opinion
No. 103872.
June 14, 1996.
Leave to Appeal Denied June 14, 1996:
Court of Appeals No. 152250.
I would remand this case to the circuit court to clarify findings in its opinion dated July 18, 1991, denying defendant's motion to suppress his statement. At page 5, the opinion states that Battle Creek police officer Walters testified that defendant reinitiated a conversation with Walters by saying, "I want to talk with you." This appears to be the basis for a similar finding on the same page that defendant spontaneously told Walters that he wanted to talk. In fact, Walters testified that after he entered the room, "I [Walters] asked him [defendant] if he did want to talk with me and he indicated yes."
I
Defendant was involved in a murder in Battle Creek in 1991. He was not the one who strangled the victim, but he assisted. He and his two coconspirators stole the victim's car and dropped her body in Oklahoma. Then, defendant and one coconspirator were dropped off in Tempe, Arizona. He was picked up by Arizona police and, because he was sixteen, was placed in juvenile detention. Officer Walters flew to Arizona and interviewed the defendant. The defendant asked for counsel, and the questioning ceased.
When the extradition warrant arrived, the Arizona police asked the defendant if he wished to contest extradition. The defendant said he wanted to return to Michigan as quickly as possible. The Michigan officer then returned to read the warrant and the charges to the defendant, and then to inspect the defendant for any bruises.
This was interrupted by lunch, during which the Michigan officer left the defendant, and was then told by an Arizona officer that the defendant had expressed a desire to speak to him (the Michigan officer) about the case. The Michigan officer returned to talk to the defendant, beginning by asking whether he wished to talk to the officer. The defendant allegedly said yes, was reminded of his Miranda rights, and proceeded to confess.
Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
The confession was the key evidence at the defendant's trial. The defendant denies reinitiating contact or telling any Arizona official that he wished to speak with the Michigan officer. The judge, after a Walker hearing, ruled against the defendant, employing language in his opinion that does not appear in the Walker hearing record.
People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331 (1965).
II
Defendant's application in propria persona alleges violation of his Miranda/Edwards rights in that he was improperly reapproached by the Michigan officer after he had asked for counsel. It is undisputed that the defendant had asked for counsel and that the Michigan officer had initially honored that request. The dispute concerns who reinitiated the interrogation.
Edwards v Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
While the judge's factual findings concerning which witnesses he believed are entitled to great deference, there is reason to question his conclusion. The judge said that the defendant, on seeing the Michigan officer after lunch, asked to talk about the case once more. This is contrary to the testimony of both the defendant and the Michigan officer. There are also significant differences between the testimony and the court's findings of fact concerning who informed the Michigan officer that the defendant wished to speak again.
I join in the statement of Justice LEVIN.
I would remand for an evidentiary hearing.