People of Michigan v. Mark William Volke
329263
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Mark William Volke was convicted by a jury of armed robbery for a convenience-store theft and sentenced to 160–360 months. The victim-cashier testified defendant demanded money, said he had a gun while reaching between jackets, but she never saw a gun. Defendant denied possessing or representing a weapon.
- At the police station, after Miranda warnings, defendant declined to sign a waiver and said he did not want to talk; as officers were ending the interview one officer advised defendant of the charge (armed robbery) and defendant voluntarily made exculpatory remarks denying a weapon. A video of that exchange was played at trial.
- Trial court instructed the jury on armed robbery but rejected a defendant-proposed instruction that would have required proof that defendant specifically intended to represent he had a weapon.
- Defendant did not object at trial to the court’s practice of identifying jurors by number rather than name; on appeal he raised three claims: jury-instruction error (specific intent language), Miranda/interrogation error, and anonymous-jury/due-process error.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed instructional error de novo, Miranda/interrogation questions de novo, and anonymous-jury claimed error for plain error (unpreserved).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury should have been instructed that defendant must have specifically intended to represent possession of a weapon | The armed-robbery instruction without the extra specific-intent language was sufficient | Trial court erred by refusing instruction requiring proof defendant specifically intended to represent he had a weapon | Rejected — specific intent element of armed robbery applies to larceny (intent to permanently deprive), not to the representation of a weapon; adding that requirement would impose an extra element |
| Whether statements after invocation of right to remain silent were the product of custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda | Officers’ admonition of the charge was not interrogation; statements admissible | Post-invocation officer comment and ensuing exchange were interrogation that violated Miranda and tainted statements | Rejected — advising the charge was informational, not interrogation; no Miranda violation. Even if error, admission was harmless because statements were exculpatory and duplicative of trial testimony |
| Whether use of juror numbers (anonymous jury practice) violated due process or impaired voir dire | Use of numbers compromised meaningful voir dire and presumption of innocence | Numbering was routine, names withheld but biographical info was publicly given, and presumption was repeatedly instructed | Rejected (plain-error review) — record shows biographical info was disclosed, voir dire was meaningful, and court instructed on presumption of innocence; no plain error requiring reversal |
| Whether any preserved or plain errors required reversal of conviction | N/A | N/A | No reversible error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fennell, 260 Mich App 261 (instructional-error standard and requirement to present elements and theories)
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101 (review of instructions as a whole)
- People v. Allen, 201 Mich App 98 (elements of armed robbery)
- People v. McGuire, 39 Mich App 308 (larceny as a specific-intent crime)
- People v. Lee, 243 Mich App 163 (specific intent in armed robbery pertains to intent to permanently deprive)
- People v. White, 493 Mich 187 (Miranda/interrogation and invocation principles)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (Miranda warnings and invocation rule)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 US 291 (functional-equivalent definition of interrogation)
- People v. McCuaig, 126 Mich App 754 (advising suspect of charges not interrogation)
- People v. Whitehead, 238 Mich App 1 (harmless-error analysis for erroneously admitted confessions)
- People v. Hanks, 276 Mich App 91 (anonymous-jury principles and when withholding information impairs voir dire)
- People v. Williams, 241 Mich App 519 (definition and concerns with anonymous juries)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error review framework)
- People v. Peltola, 489 Mich 174 (obiter dicta nonbinding)