 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Harrington10/2/2003
FOR PUBLICATION
A jury convicted defendant Lawrence W. Harrington, II of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), MCL 750.520c(1)(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to 57 to 180 months' imprisonment for the conviction. He appeals as of right. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
This appeal arises from claims that defendant sexually abused his stepson when his stepson was five years old. The allegations of abuse did not arise for nine years. The complainant made these charges when he was incarcerated as a juvenile for criminal sexual conduct.
On the day of defendant's arraignment, Trooper David Gutierrez visited defendant in jail and spoke with him regarding his Miranda rights, the investigation, and the possibility of taking a polygraph examination. Trooper Gutierrez stated that defendant insisted on taking a polygraph to prove his innocence. Defendant was subsequently arraigned later that day and trial counsel was appointed. Almost two weeks after the arraignment, Trooper Gutierrez again visited defendant in jail to ask defendant if he still wanted to take the polygraph. Trooper Gutierrez testified that he asked defendant if he had contacted his attorney regarding the examination. When defendant explained that he had not discussed the examination with his attorney, Trooper Gutierrez claimed that he offered to arrange a meeting. According to Trooper Gutierrez, defendant declined this offer and stated that he did not want his attorney present. Defendant, however, testified that he would have liked the opportunity to discuss the polygraph examination with his trial counsel.
The following day, Trooper Gutierrez and two other officers returned to the jail and transported defendant to the polygraph examination. Before the examination, defendant was read his Miranda rights and signed a standard waiver form. When defendant learned he failed the exam, Trooper Gutierrez claimed that defendant asked to speak with him about the investigation and repeated this request upon their return to the jail. At this point, Trooper Gutierrez and two other officers agreed to discuss the investigation with defendant in an interview room. The troopers testified that defendant confessed and recanted twice during the interview. Defendant, however, denied asking to speak with the police officers. Rather, defendant testified that it was Trooper Gutierrez who asked him if he wanted to talk about the polygraph results when they returned to the jail. Defendant agreed to speak with the officers at the jail but claimed that he maintained his innocence throughout the interview.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the post-polygraph interview statements. He maintains that these statements were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because they were the result of police-initiated contact after his arraignment and appointment of trial counsel. We agree. A trial court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error on appeal. "To the extent that a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo."
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." This amendment thus affords an accused the right to rely on counsel as an intermediary between him and the state. When a defendant invokes the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, any subsequent waiver of this right in a police-initiated custodial interview is ineffective with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|