Defendant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 to 30 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right.
Defendant raises several arguments on appeal. The issue we find sufficiently meritorious to warrant discussion concerns whether a statement attributed to defendant was properly admitted into evidence at trial.
The record reveals that defendant was arrested with another person on February 10, 1982, and charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery in connection with the robbery of a clothing store in Detroit the same day. The security guard was shot and killed. A Walker
The testimony at the Walker hearing revealed that defendant was taken into custody at approximately 6:00 p.m. on February 10, 1982. On the morning of February 11, 1982, defendant was taken to a hospital for treatment of a hand injury. Defendant returned to the station house that evening. Arraignment was conducted on the morning of February 12, 1982.
During the night of February 11, 1982, defendant initiated a converstaion with an officer of the Detroit Fire Department, who was in the station house to interview a witness in an arson case. The defendant expressed a willingness to talk about
The police officer asked the defendant to put the statement in writing. The defendant then requested that an attorney or his sister be present. The police officer brought in an attorney who was at the station house on line-up duty. The attorney did not discuss the facts of the case with defendant. Rather, she informed defendant that she could not represent him and advised defendant to keep his mouth shut until the arraignment, when an attorney would be appointed. Defendant then requested that his sister be present. Defendant’s sister arrived at the station house and entered the interview room. Defendant then reduced the statement to written form with the aid of the police officer. Defendant did not request an attorney and no further attempt was made to procure an attorney for defendant.
The testimony at the Walker hearing also included defendant’s testimony that his actions on that evening were affected by the drug penicillin, which was given to him at the hospital. However, defendant’s girl friend testified that penicillin caused only a skin rash. At the conclusion of the testimony, defendant argued that the interrogation had been conducted in derogation of his constitutional rights. Defendant argued that, once he requested that he wanted an attorney present, all interrogation should have ended.
The trial judge rejected this argument. The judge held that there was no interrogation because defendant initiated the conversation with the po
At the trial, the testimony established that two men perpetrated the robbery of the clothing store. During the robbery, the men disarmed the guard and shot him. The cashier of the store identified the person arrested with defendant, Michael Anthony Wicks,
The substance of defendant’s statement is as follows. Defendant entered the store with Wicks to buy clothing. Once inside, Wicks told him that he intended to rob the store. Defendant agreed and together they disarmed the guard. Wicks took the guard’s gun. Defendant took the money from the register and ran out of the store. Once outside, defendant heard two shots fired. As both men ran from the scene, defendant placed the handgun in his pocket because his coat was bigger.
The standard of review for suppression rulings requires this Court to examine the whole record and independently determine whether the defendant voluntarily made the statements admitted at trial. People v Robinson,
The present case is clearly distinguishable from the authoritive cases on police interrogation. See Edwards v Arizona,
In People ex rel Wayne Prosecutor v Recorder's Court Judge, 79 Mich App 495;
"By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning inititated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
People v Paintman, supra, pp 528-529, quoting from Miranda v Arizona,
Therefore, while it is true that "custodial interrogation by police may take different forms”, People v Paintman, supra, p 529, we do not find any overreaching in the conduct of police in this case. Thé officer did not "impinge on the exercise of the subject’s continuing option to cut off the interview”. People v Giuchici,
Likewise, we are not persuaded by the defendant’s assertion that he was so unduly influenced by his allergic reaction to penicillin that his statement was not the product of a clear mind. The trial judge heard conflicting testimony of the effect of the drug on defendant. On this question we defer to the factual determination of the trial judge. There is nothing in the record to suggest that his decision was erroneous. People v Anglin,
Finally, we reject defendant’s árgument that the delay in his arraignment was used as a tool to extract a confession. Michigan law requires that police bring a prisoner before a magistrate for
We find the remainder of defendant’s arguments meritless.
Affirmed.
Notes
People v Walker (On Rehearing),
Wicks, who was jointly tried with defendant, was convicted of second-degree murder, armed robbery, assault with intent to rob armed and felony firearm. This Court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. People v Wicks, Docket No. 66835, decided November 2, 1983.