53 Mich. App. 306 | Mich. Ct. App. | 1974
Defendant appeals as of right from his July 25, 1972, conviction by the trial court, sitting without a jury, of second-degree murder. MCLA 750.317; MSA 28.549.
Defendant first claims that the trial court erroneously concluded that defendant’s confession to a police officer was voluntary.
A careful review of the record shows that defendant was read a clear and comprehensive summary of his Miranda rights
We conclude that the challenged statement of Detective Steeno did not constitute a type of subterfuge which would render defendant’s confession involuntary and inadmissible. Therefore, the trial court’s finding of voluntariness was not clearly erroneous.
In defendant’s second appeal issue, he contends that the trial court erred reversibly presiding over both a Walker hearing
Defendant did not object to the fact that the trial judge presided over both the Walker hearing
Affirmed.
Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).
People v Walker, 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (On Rehearing, 1965).