*1 1972] 551 v Robinson
PEOPLE v ROBINSON Court — — — Law 1. Criminal Confessions Voluntariness Question Eact. determination of voluntariness statements which the given defendant had is a matter of fact. Law—Confessions—Admissibility—Voluntariness— Criminal 2. Appeal and Error. hearing purpose regarding admissibility The sole of a aof confession is to determine the fact of voluntariness of state- person ments of a reviewing accused of crime and a court only determination; is concerned with the correctness reviewing required to examine entire record an independent make determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness.
References Points Headnotes 2d, Am29 Jur Evidence [1-5] 587. § Admissibility case, pretrial Supreme confession in criminal Cases, supplementing 1 L 1735, 1833, 2d 4 L Ed Ed 2d 12 1340, L 1294, Ed 2d 16 L Ed L 2d 22 Ed 2d 872. 2,13] 2d, Am29 Jur Evidence 590. § 2d, 29 Am Jur 585. Evidence '3] '4, § 2d, seq. Am29 Jur et Evidence 566 5] § '4, 5,13] suspect Police if statements confesses his relatives arrested, will be custody rendering from be released or not as involuntary. confession 80 1428. ALR2d 2d, seq. 29 Am 549, Jur et Evidence 566 5] §§ 2d, seq. 5 Appeal Am Jur et Error 797 § 6] § 7, Am 2d, Appeal seq. Jur and Error et 9] '8,14] 2d, seq. 29 Am Jur 320 et Evidence § 2d, seq. 21 Am Jur et Criminal Law 234 '10] 'll] § 2d, Appeal 5 Am Jur and Error § 821. 2d, 29 Am Jur Evidence § suspect Police relatives will statements that confesses his '13] arrested, be rendering released from or not con- involuntary. fession 80 ALR2d 1428. Law—Confessions—Admissibility—Voluntariness— 3. Criminal Credibility. admissibility hearing regarding on a issue The narrow *2 person of a of the statement is the voluntariness a confession as the manner of and such considerations accused of crime gun possession used in apprehension, his get it, killing, attempt rid of which are con- and his credibility, assaying in do by the sidered not bear on that issue. Mind
4. Criminal Law—Confessions—Voluntariness—State —Threats. police prosecu- given a statement to the
The voluntariness of thought mind, and turns on the defendant’s state of tor impres- improperly and that his wife was or would be detained him, made to of a threat to do so sion the result charged practically is of no custody being fact of her importance. 5. Criminal Law—Confessions—Voluntariness—Evidence. police and were to the
Defendant’s statements voluntary waited until and were inadmissible where questioned in for over four had been after he given his statement before hours and had at last them first injuries hospital taking him for treatment to the a apprehension, his which exhibited received at the time of compatible threats than their callousness more with their a them, detec- denial and where there was his wife would be defendant earlier that tive had informed practice will go a if she were not involved because free to silently by sit the detective not be sanctioned that would let making the state- prosecutor he was while defendant told wife pregnant know whether ment because he did not so his jail going in it like it is” and he was “tell go wife could home. — Admissibility — — — Mis- Verdict Evidence
6. Criminal Law Prejudice. carriage — — Reversible Error Justice on the in a criminal case A aside verdict should not be set unless, from ground improper admission of evidence affirmatively appears that cause, it examination of the entire question justice; miscarriage in such error a resulted whether determination of reversal controlled 529.1). 729.26; GCR prejudicial (MOLA error was v Robinson Appeal Error—Harmless Error. appropriate determining prejudice considerations in an first, error error are: whether the is so offensive main- to the judicial process of a sound tenance it never can be harmless; second, if regarded basic, not so whether the beyond was harmless court declare belief that doubt. reasonable Law—Evidence—Separate Crime—Admissibility—Ap-
8. Criminal peal and Error. injection improper Prosecutor’s deliberate evidence of the of a commission crime defendant and the trial acquiescence integrity court’s it are such affront Supreme should the trial that the not countenance it. Law—Miscarriage
9. Criminal Justice—Statutes—Constitu- tional Law—Due Process. Statutory provision judgment set no or verdict should be *3 granted or in a case on aside reversed or new trial criminal grounds complained of various enumerated unless the justice miscarriage in a is not a for it resulted of cure-all or else declared
must serve within constitutional limitations be void; clearly minor errors can be held not have affected which statutory provision, may by but mollified this the result be right process deprive of due errors which an accused of the an composed thereby detriment of of be law cannot (MCLA 769.26). accused
10. Constitutional Trial—Due Process—Courts. Law—Pair and right of fair maintaining trial responsibility of the and judicial branch placed with the of law is due legislative permission. by be otherwise cannot Law—Appeal and Error. Criminal 11. guilt or with the Supreme not concerned facts trier of the accused, for innocence as tried. apply to the ease the law
and must Army Discharge—Appeal and 12. Criminal Law—Undesirable Error. discharge from undesirable of defendant’s elicitation Prosecutor’s trial new on a avoided and should army was error
Dissenting Opinion Black, Adams, and T. E. Brennan, JJ. Law—Confessions—Voluntariness—Credibility— Criminal Evidence—Admissibility. prosecutor, statement to assistant made on the Defendant’s day arrest, voluntary his properly was and in admitted of “clearly evidence under the erroneous" standard or an exam- ination the entire record on the issue voluntariness where of of participation statement admitted in a rob- defendant’s bery, hilling occurred; alleged which he it was involun- tary gave because he claimed he the statement so that his pregnant by go home; could be released wife testimony hearing because all his at a trial court to deter- of mine the voluntariness his statement was all uncorroborated of self-serving, acceptance rejection testimony or was dependent upon credibility of defendant defendant considering was apprehension, not credible the manner his possession gun his hilling attempt used in the and his get it, statement, rid his admitted and the false first testimony not in unrefuted defendant’s wife charged anything. or Crimes—Evidence—Mistrial—Appeal 14. Criminal Law—Other Error—Miscarriage Justice—Substantial Justice— Statutes—Court Rules. denying Error court a motion mistrial and permitting answer on cross-examination to stand driving had stolen the car when although arrested was not reversible error it was a deli- attempt by get berate before inadmissible crime de- with which charged upon had never been because review fendant record, required rule, statute no mis- carriage justice any inconsistency with substantial justice is where criminal and un- status found testimony prior were well established own truthfulness *4 regarding the stolen car and evidence guilt overwhelming (MCLÁ 769.26; 1963, 529.1). GCE of Army Discharge—Appeal 15. Criminal and Law—Dishonorable Trial—Miscarriage Error—Verdicts—New of Justice—Sub- stantial Justice—Statutes—Court Rules. discharge That had received a dishonorable defendant from brought army, prosecutor’s on out cross-examination Robinson the Court error, on defendant, was not reversible error of providing appellate reversal a statute record under where, grant is restricted to cases a new trial a verdict or affirmatively record, it shall the entire an examination of after miscarriage justice resulted in has appear the error providing the admission that no error rule and granting ground new trial unless evidence refusal for justice with substantial appears be inconsistent so to do 196S, 529.1). 769.26; (MCLA GCS Appeals, Le- Division Appeal from Court Brennan, JJ., J. and Y. J., Quinn sinski, C. Joseph A. affirming Detroit, Recorder’s (No. September 17, 1971. Submitted Grillis,J. 52,880-1/2.) Decided No. 1971, Docket June Term April Rehearing February 10, 1972. denied 25, 1972. App 397 reversed. 23 Mich of first- convicted Maurice Robinson was Michael appealed to the Court degree Defendant murder. appeals. Re- Appeals. Affirmed. Defendant trial. for new versed and remanded Kelley, Attorney Robert A. General, Frank J. Derengoski, Gahalan, William L. General, Solicitor Attorney, Garnovale, Prosecuting Dominick R. Appellate Department, Lewis, R. Thomas Chief, Attorney, people. Prosecuting for Assistant Appellate Defender, Tarnow, Arthur J. State appeal. on doubt much There T. G. J. Kavanagh, killed Wil- that Michael shot Maurice Robinson jewelry during holdup Mr. Finnk’s liam Finnk convicted crime store. He was tried for first-degree and the murder ample conviction. the record is to sustain the *5 Mich 551 556 op Opinion the Court appeal defendant asserts that did not On accordingly must trial, have fair and review determine the record and whether whereby “guilty” was the verdict of entered did or comport did not the standards which have right been established to enforce his to a fair trial. The the trial defendant maintains that was un- fair for three reasons:
1) The trial court admitted which two statements given prosecutor had and voluntarily given. which were not 2) prosecutor deliberately injected of a crime after the court had held proper it was not to do so. 3) evidence of introduced the de- discharge army. fendant’s undesirable from the Appeals The Court conviction,1 affirmed the holding voluntarily given that the statements were although and hence admissible; it was error introduce evidence of another it was harm- crime, deciding, error; less held even without it be error to introduce evidence of un- army discharge, desirable would be harmless too error. Appeals
areWe not satisfied that the Court concluding was correct in were vol- statements untary admissible. cannot conclude the trial accorded this defendant was fair and accord- ingly reverse and remand for new trial. hearing
The trial court conducted a Walker2 ruling: held the statements were admissible, “The I law, Court: as a matter of based find, upon People Walker, 331, versus Sims 374 Georgia versus 593; 17th Law Edition 2nd Jackson
2 People v Walker, 1 People Michael Robinson, 23 Mich (On Rehearing, 1965). App (1970). v Robinson the Court 908; Law 2nd Denno 12th. Edition under
versus the Rule of Arizona that the Miranda versus and confessions are volun- admissions statements, *6 permitted received tary Jury.” to be the will misspoken. may The determina- have The court ruling a matter of fact—the of voluntariness is tion authority cited is that cases law on the the voluntary and invol- statements etc. are admissible untary etc. are not. statements purpose any of the Walker hear- sole
In
event the
ing
and a
of voluntariness
is
determine the fact
to
only
reviewing
the correct-
with
court is concerned
reviewing
The role
determination.
ness
People
accurately
15
in
Summers,
stated
(1968):
App
348
346,
Mich
required
appeal
‘examine
are
we
“On
independent
determina
make
entire record and
tion of the ultimate
Davis
issue of voluntariness.’
(86
(1966),
742
741,
While the consideration of “his false proper crediting first statement” is *7 hearing, proper at Walker it is one but considerations in that evaluation. testimony
“The unrefuted that wife defendant’s custody charged anything” was not in or with ais distracting because the consideration, voluntariness of the statement turns on the defendant’s state of thought mind, he his wife or would improperly impression detained and that was the result of a threat to him, do so made to the fact custody being practically charged of her is of importance. no obligation
We, of have course, the same to make independent an determination ultimate issue of voluntariness from our own examination of the entire record. abiding
From we are left an conviction voluntary that the statements were and hence not not admissible. agitated on statement its face
man. The fact until after waited Robinson Opinion op the Court questioned lie had been in for over given had four hours and at last them his first taking statement before the defendant to the hos pital injuries for treatment received at the apprehension time exhibits a callousness compatible more with the defendant’s their threats than their denial of them. If Detec Casey tive had indeed informed the defendant ear go lier that his wife would he if she were free practice not he involved, as testified, will sanctioned that would let the sit detective silent ly while the defendant told the that he * * “ # making the statement because I * * * they got County don’t know if her in the Jail got go through, I I don’t know what I hut am * * * going go to tell it is it like so she can home going baby.” she’s to have a conclude the Walker court erred in hold- ing voluntary statements admis- accordingly sible must and remand reverse may a new trial at which the statements not be admitted. possible
Because on retrial it is that the asserted errors on the admission of the evidence of the com- mission of the auto crime of theft and the separation army nature of the from might again ourselves them. arise, address Appeals (pp
The Court of the matter treats thus 402-404):
“During the of cross-examination defendant prosecuting attorney, the asked, the former was you you get ‘When did arrested, were where that you replied, driving?’ car were Defendant ‘That objected I car? stoled that car.’ counsel Defense requested and of to the the discuss matter absence jury. jury the and defendant was excused moved for a mistrial. In to statement defendant’s Mich the Court attorney, prosecuting to references there were tbe judge had stricken them the car, stolen but the jury. the was read to before that statement properly argues that defendant record, “On this a delib- inadvertence but is not an instance this erate before attorney get attempt by prosecuting to namely: testimony, jury inadmissible with which crime proof distinct judge charged. The trial been had never permitted mistrial, the an- for the motion denied permitted further cross-examina- swer to stand tion with ther any respect Before fur- stolen car. judge trial however, the taken, respect jury any evidence with instructed pertinent offenses was not to other jury’s only guilt evaluation relevant to but was credibility. Defendant claims was reversible error. validity question is for decision not the
“The general which shows or tends rule that the to has another committed show that accused independent wholly with, unconnected of, crime is in- on irrelevant and trial, for which is Lundberg (1961), v. admissible. every question of that is does violation require automatic reversal? rule By § statute, think not. CL 769.26 “We 28.1096), appellate (Stat § reversal Ann 1954 Rev grant a new trial verdict or the an examina- where, to those cases after restricted tion affirmatively appear cause, entire shall complained in a mis- has resulted that the error justice. carriage
“By no error in the admis- 1963, 529.1, rule, GrCR ground granting for a new sion of evidence or for setting do unless aside a verdict refusal jus- appears to with substantial so be inconsistent tice. say foregoing statute “We do not type every here
rule are error of cure-alls *9 People v Robinson Opinion op the Court complained say requires of. We do that each appellate to review the whole case and in with that review determine if the context complained miscarriage justice
of resulted in a
hold
refusal to
the error is
or
error
reversible
justice.
inconsistent
substantial
“We have reviewed this record
statute
require,
and rule
carriage
stantial
is not to
and we are
unable
find a mis-
justice
any inconsistency
with sub-
justice
uphold
if we
court. This
say
practice
that we condone the
attorney
prosecuting
nor the action of the trial
sustaining
practice.
say
court in
on this record
It is to
say
cannot
the error was revers-
ibie.
“On
examination,
direct
testified to
playing
craps,
shooting
patronizing
the numbers,
pigs
dealing
guns.
blind
in illicit
On cross-
complained
examination, before the error here
of,
weapons.
he admitted he carried concealed
His
criminal
status
were well
untruthfulness
estab-
testimony prior
lished
regarding
his own
guilt
the stolen car. The evidence of
overwhelming
only
supporting
and the
testimony.”
defendant’s alibi was
own
agree
Appeals
with the Court of
that it was
prosecutor’s question
error to let the
stand. How-
People
Lundberg,
ever, as we read
v
cited
Appeals supra,
trial,
was a
since this
authority
saying
that case would be
such error
prejudicial.
would be deemed
“Had such evidence
jury,
been
hesitate
a
admitted in
trial to a
we would not
Lundberg,
guilt.”
reverse
verdict
supra, p
say
603. But we
so for
different
reason.
rule on its “harmless error statute”
is stated in
Nichols,
§ provides which in effect that a verdict Opinion op the Court in a criminal case on the aside shall not be set improper ground evidence unless, admission of the entire it affirm- cause, from an examination *10 atively appears in a mis- that such error resulted justice. urges carriage Plaintiff that the entire persuasive guilt. is As we record held 242 Anderson, in a civil v. 340 Mich case, Soltar provisions of where the similar CL [1954], (Stat 27.2618), § § Ann 1943 650.28 Rev were 1948, urged against jury, a claim misdirection of the always Michigan, rule in in both before the and effect after mentioned statutes the enactment thereby, been and is that and unaffected has question of whether by of reversal is determination controlled prejudicial. Having been the error prejudicial, resulting that it follows verdict judgment must be and are new trial.” reversed, regard the strictures MCLA 769.26 and 1963, 529.1, GrCR as different articulations of the appellate courts same idea: should not reverse a prejudicial. conviction unless error As * * “ * —supra in Nichols, stated the rule al # #* ways Michigan, in effect in been and has question is of reversal is controlled de prejudicial”. termination of whether error was determining prejudice In in are an there many pointed considerations. As out former Roger Traynor, in California Chief his book Justice (Ohio Error Riddle Harmless Univ State 1970), p ed Press 17: large justice incorporated “A like into a rule word appellate governing compels error, harmless particular not alone with a to concern itself judi- very integrity result but also with the process.” cial appropriate in are described considerations
People (1968): App Wichman, 110, 116 15 Mich People 563 v Robinson Opinion op the Court it claimed that error
“Where two harmless, are is the error inquiries pertinent. First, so offen of a sound judicial sive to the maintenance be regarded never can as harmless? See People Bigge (1939), 288 Mich People v. 417, 421; v. Berry People v. Mos 474; 10 Mich App 469, (1968), ley (1953), Chapman 338 559, See, also, v. (1967), (87 24 18, US S Ct 23, California L17 Ed 2d 705), denied US rehearing (87 L Ed 2d S Ct 1283,18 241). Second, not so basic, can we a belief declare error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? v. Liggett See Mich 706, 716, 717; Chapman (1967), v. Cali fornia, supra.” without
Here,
regard
the result
reached
case, the prosecutor’s
injection
deliberate
of this im-
proper
and the trial
acquiescence
court’s
*11
it are such affront
to the
of
integrity
process
the
that we will not countenance it.
People v Bigge,
Cf.
“That is not a cure-all statutory provision for it must serve within constitutional limitations else be declared void. Minor errors which can clearly be held not have the result affected mol- may lified by this but errors statutory provision, which of deprive an accused the due right process of law composed cannot be the thereby detriment of an accused. The of maintaining the responsibility of fair right trial and due placed law is with the branch judicial and cannot be otherwise by We not are concerned with legislative permission. the or innocence guilt accused, we are not triers and must the law to the apply case facts as tried. inexcusable, statement was wholly without of law, warrant irremovable planted impres- sion, and defendant a rendered victim error. such intended prosecutor by proof statement so an effect brought probable, guilt by Black, J. Dissenting Opinioii to constitute as so prejudicial and inadmissible, so added), (emphasis error.” irreparable 422: and at p by of trial of right
“In the maintenance incidents are constrained its integrity of full the conviction reverse error the mentioned added.) (Emphasis a new trial.” case for remand “harmless”. hold not would of the defendant’s elicitation reference With it was we hold army from discharge undesirable trial. new avoided on the should be error and Reversed. and Wil- and Swainson J.,C.
T. M. Kavanagh, T. G-. J. concurred with JJ., Kavanagh, liams, I with the first par- (dissenting). agree J. Black, It is re- opinion, only. of the Court’s agraph reader: for the convenience here quoted that Michael Maurice much doubt “There Finnk during killed William shot and Robinson store. He was tried Mr. Finnk’s jewelry holdup of first- convicted the jury for the crime and in the record is murder degree to sustain the conviction.” ample for Division I regard Judge opinion Quinn’s best one which analyzes as the (23 397) App murder an- cold-blooded of this latest proof shopkeeper, preferred other hapless *12 questions appellate choice of successive views Appeals. the Court of appeal that were raised on and I therefore dissent. cast, to affirm My vote J. T. E. concurred J., Black, Brennan, concurred in the result. Adams, J.,