-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 24, 2015 

v No. 311295 

Lapeer Circuit Court 

KENNETH CARL GRONDIN III, LC No. 12-010954-FC 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and SAWYER and O’CONNELL, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 The prosecutor appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress 

statements made during a police interview. The trial court determined that suppression was 

required under People v Bender, 452 Mich 594, 597; 551 NW2d 71 (1996), overruled by People 

v Tanner, 496 Mich 199; 853 NW2d 653 (2014), because the police failed to notify defendant 

that an attorney had been retained and was attempting to contact him before defendant waived 

his Miranda1

 rights and submitted to the police interview. This Court originally denied the 

prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal.2 The prosecutor filed an application for leave to 

appeal with our Supreme Court, which held the application in abeyance pending a decision in 

Tanner. After the Supreme Court decided Tanner, in which it overruled Bender, it remanded this 

case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. People v Grondin III, 497 Mich 867; 

853 NW2d 372 (2014). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

 Defendant was charged with open murder, MCL 750.316, in connection with the death of 

his girlfriend. After the victim’s body was discovered at a relative’s house, the police arrived at 

defendant’s home, where he lived with his mother, to question him about the victim’s death. 

Officers arrived at the home between 5:00 and 5:30 a.m. and then brought him to a police post 

for an interview. Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and agreed to give a statement, 

but made no inculpatory statements during this interview. He also consented to provide a buccal 

 

1 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 

2 People v Kenneth Carl Grondin III, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 

25, 2012 (Docket No. 311295). 
-2- 

swab and hair samples. After the interview, the police returned with defendant to his home 

where he and his mother consented to a search of the home. During the search, defendant’s 

mother spoke on the telephone with a family attorney, whom defendant’s grandfather had 

retained to represent defendant. Conflicting testimony was presented regarding whether 

defendant’s mother was allowed to talk to defendant about the attorney’s availability and desire 

to speak to defendant. The family attorney testified that he spoke to the officer who was at the 

house and informed the officer that he wanted to speak with defendant, but the officer would not 

allow defendant to speak on the phone. Other detectives arrived at the home to take defendant 

for an enhanced interview. Over the next several hours, the family attorney attempted to contact 

the detectives to prevent any questioning, but his calls were disconnected or sent to voicemail. 

The attorney also attempted to contact and visit the police stations where defendant was believed 

to have been taken, but the attorney was given conflicting information regarding the interview 

location. Despite the numerous calls to detectives and trips to police posts, the attorney was 

unable to reach defendant before he submitted to an interview later that afternoon. During the 

second interview, defendant initially denied any involvement with his girlfriend’s death, but 

ultimately gave incriminating statements that led to charges against him. Relying on Bender, the 

trial court determined that the failure of the police to notify defendant of the attorney’s 

availability and attempts to contact defendant required suppression of his statements at the 

second interview. 

 The prosecutor argues that the trial court’s decision must be reversed in light of our 

Supreme Court’s recent decision in Tanner, in which it overruled its decision in Bender. We 

agree. Questions of law pertaining to a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo. People v 

Keller, 479 Mich 467, 473; 739 NW2d 505 (2007). Constitutional claims also present questions 

of law that are reviewed de novo. Id. at 473-474. The trial court’s factual findings when ruling 

on a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error. People v Elliott, 494 Mich 292, 300; 833 

NW2d 284 (2013). The trial court’s role in determining factual issues and issues of credibility 

must be respected. People v Williams, 470 Mich 634, 641; 683 NW2d 597 (2004). However, 

the trial court’s application of the law is not entitled to the same deference as factual findings. 

People v Jenkins, 472 Mich 26, 31; 691 NW2d 759 (2005). Accordingly, the court’s ultimate 

ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo. People v Williams, 472 Mich 308, 313; 696 

NW2d 636 (2005). 

 The United States Constitution, US Const, Am V, and the Michigan Constitution, Const 

1963, art 1, § 17, both prohibit compelled self-incrimination. Elliott, 494 Mich at 301 n 4. The 

prosecutor may not use a defendant’s exculpatory or inculpatory statements arising from a 

custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the application of procedural safeguards to protect 

the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 

L Ed 2d 694 (1966). “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to 

remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he 

has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Id. The defendant may 

waive his rights if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Id. 

 In Moran v Burbine, 475 US 412; 106 S Ct 1135; 89 L Ed 2d 410 (1986), the United 

States Supreme Court held that the failure of police to inform a suspect of an attorney’s efforts to 

reach that suspect does not invalidate the suspect’s waiver of Miranda rights. The Court 

explained: 
-3- 

 Events occurring outside the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown 

to him surely can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly 

relinquish a constitutional right. Under the analysis of the Court of Appeals, the 

same defendant, armed with the same information and confronted with precisely 

the same police conduct, would have knowingly waived his Miranda rights had a 

lawyer not telephoned the police station to inquire about his status. Nothing in 

any of our waiver decisions or in our understanding of the essential components 

of a valid waiver requires so incongruous a result. No doubt the additional 

information would have been useful to respondent; perhaps even it might have 

affected his decision to confess. But we have never read the Constitution to 

require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him 

calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights. 

Once it is determined that a suspect’s decision not to rely on his rights was 

uncoerced, that he at all times knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, 

and that he was aware of the State’s intention to use his statements to secure a 

conviction, the analysis is complete and the waiver is valid as a matter of law. . . . 

 Nor do we believe that the level of the police’s culpability in failing to 

inform respondent of the telephone call has any bearing on the validity of the 

waivers. . . . But whether intentional or inadvertent, the state of mind of the 

police is irrelevant to the question of the intelligence and voluntariness of 

respondent’s election to abandon his rights. Although highly inappropriate, even 

deliberate deception of an attorney could not possibly affect a suspect’s decision 

to waive his Miranda rights unless he were at least aware of the incident. . . . Nor 

was the failure to inform respondent of the telephone call the kind of “[trickery]” 

that can vitiate the validity of a waiver. . . . Granting that the “deliberate or 

reckless” withholding of information is objectionable as a matter of ethics, such 

conduct is only relevant to the constitutional validity of a waiver if it deprives a 

defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his 

rights and the consequences of abandoning them. Because respondent’s voluntary 

decision to speak was made with full awareness and comprehension of all the 

information Miranda requires the police to convey, the waivers were valid. [Id. at 

422-424 (citations omitted).] 

Despite its holding, the Supreme Court stated that state courts were free to adopt different 

standards for the conduct of its employees and officials as a matter of state law. Id. at 427-428. 

 In Bender, 452 Mich at 607, 612, our Supreme Court accepted the Moran Court’s 

invitation to adopt different requirements and held that, “in Michigan, more is required before 

the trial court may find a knowing and intelligent waiver.” The Court stated: 

 We hold that Const 1963, art 1, § 17 requires the police to inform the 

suspect that a retained attorney is immediately available to consult with him, and 
-4- 

failure to so inform him before he confesses per se precludes a knowing and 

intelligent waiver of his rights to remain silent and to counsel.3

 [452 Mich at 597.] 

 In Tanner, 496 Mich at 203, our Supreme Court rejected the contention that Michigan’s 

constitutional provision against self-incrimination affords greater protection than the United 

States Constitution and overruled its decision in Bender. The Court explained: 

 Our independent examination of Article 1, § 17, supports Moran’s 

conclusion that “full comprehension of [the Miranda rights] are sufficient to 

dispel whatever coercion is inherent in the interrogation process,” Moran, 464 

[sic] US at 427, because the warnings provide a suspect with the necessary 

information both to apprehend these rights and to make an intelligent and 

knowing waiver of the rights if he chooses. The waiver of rights cannot logically 

be affected by events that are unknown and unperceived, such as the fact that an 

attorney is somewhere present to offer assistance. As explained by one scholar: 

 “If there is any police misconduct, the suspect is unaware of such events 

because it is directed toward the attorney. Facts and events unknown to the 

suspect cannot have a coercive effect on the suspect. Therefore, the attorney’s 

efforts and/or presence is irrelevant to the suspect’s ability to make a voluntary, 

knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Moreover, as the suspect 

is still read his Miranda rights, such events do not operate to deprive the suspect 

of the knowledge of his rights. 

 To argue or conclude that a defendant, who by the good fortune of a 

family member hiring an attorney, must be told of the attorney’s attempts to make 

contact in order to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights is 

illogical and nonsensical. In fact, for the majority’s reasoning to make sense, the 

majority would have to conclude that persons who are capable of retaining an 

attorney, or have family or friends who are capable of hiring a retained attorney, 

are not capable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights 

even when the attorney is not present. As is evident by the admissibility of a 

suspect’s Miranda waiver in the ordinary custodial interrogation situation, the 

majority would not so conclude. [Carroll, A Look at People v Bender: What 

Happens when the Michigan Supreme Court Oversteps Its Power to Achieve a 

 

3

 In Bender, the lead opinion, signed by three justices, concluded that the result was required by 

the right against self-incrimination in the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 17. 

Bender, 452 Mich at 597. Justice BRICKLEY agreed with the requirement that the police must 

inform suspects that counsel has been retained for them, id. at 622-623, and recognized that both 

the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, Const 1963, art 1, §§ 17 and 20, 

respectively, are implicated, id. at 620, but preferred to announce a prophylactic rule, id. at 621. 

Consequently, “practically speaking,” Justice BRICKLEY’s opinion, although labeled a 

concurrence, constitutes the majority opinion. Tanner, 496 Mich at 215 n 8; see also People v 

Crockran, 292 Mich App 253, 256-257; 808 NW2d 499 (2011). 
-5- 

Results-Oriented Decision, 74 U Det Mercy L Rev 211, 236-237 (1997) (citations 

omitted).]” 

 We therefore agree with Moran that an outside and unperceived 

development, such as an attorney’s presence and initiation of contact with police, 

“can have no bearing on [a suspect’s] capacity to comprehend and knowingly 

relinquish a constitutional right.” Moran, 475 US at 422. Instead, as noted by the 

United States Supreme Court in Colorado v Spring, 479 US 564, 577; 107 S Ct 

851; 93 L Ed 2d 954 (1987), “the additional information could affect only the 

wisdom of a Miranda waiver, not its essentially voluntary and knowing nature.” 

It might not be in a suspect’s best interest to make a statement, but this Court need 

not concern itself with the wisdom of a suspect’s confession. To the contrary, 

voluntary but “foolish” confessions should be welcomed, as a suspect’s perhaps 

unwise but purely voluntary urge to tell the truth is vital in assisting the factfinder in ultimately ascertaining the truth of what occurred. [Tanner, 496 Mich at 

247-248 (footnotes omitted).] 

 Accordingly, the Court overruled its decision in Bender and held that “the failure of 

police to inform a suspect of an attorney’s efforts to contact him does not invalidate an otherwise 

‘voluntary, knowing, and intelligent’ Miranda waiver.” Id. at 249. 

 Because the trial court determined that suppression of defendant’s written and oral 

statements was required solely on the basis of Bender, which has since been overruled, we 

reverse the trial court’s order suppressing defendant’s statements.4

 Although Tanner requires 

reversal of the trial court’s suppression order, it does not resolve the admissibility of defendant’s 

statements. As indicated, the Supreme Court in Tanner held that “the failure of police to inform 

a suspect of an attorney’s efforts to contact him does not invalidate an otherwise ‘voluntary, 

knowing, and intelligent’ Miranda waiver.” Tanner, 496 Mich at 249 (emphasis added). Thus, it 

must be determined whether defendant’s Miranda waiver was “otherwise voluntary, knowing, 

and intelligent. In Tanner, 496 Mich at 209, the Supreme Court looked to the two-part test 

established in Moran, 475 US at 421: 

 First, the relinquishment of the right must have been “voluntary,” in the 

sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than 

intimidation, coercion or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made 

with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the 

consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the “totality of the 

circumstances surrounding the interrogation” reveal both an uncoerced choice and 

the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the 

Miranda rights have been waived. 

 

4

 Given our decision, it is unnecessary to address the prosecutor’s arguments that the trial court 

erred in determining that Bender was applicable, or that defendant was not subjected to a 

custodial interrogation. 
-6- 

The analysis must be bifurcated to inquire whether the waiver was voluntary, and whether the 

waiver was knowing and intelligent. People v Tierney, 266 Mich App 687, 707; 703 NW2d 204 

(2005). 

 We note that although the trial court relied on Bender to hold that defendant’s statements 

were not voluntary, the Supreme Court in Bender did not hold that the failure to inform the 

defendants of their attorneys’ attempts to contact them affected the voluntariness of their 

statements. Rather, the failure to impart this information affected only whether the waiver of 

their rights to remain silent and to counsel were knowingly and intelligently made. Bender, 452 

Mich at 605, 614. Indeed, the Court in Bender agreed that because there was no evidence of 

police coercion, “neither defendant’s statement was involuntary, and thus need not be suppressed 

for that reason.” Id. at 604. 

 In Tanner, 496 Mich at 247, our Supreme Court explained that Miranda warnings 

“provide a suspect with the necessary information both to apprehend these rights and to make an 

intelligent and knowing waiver of the rights if he chooses.” The record discloses that defendant 

was advised of his Miranda rights before the police interview, and that he signed a written 

certification acknowledging that he could have an attorney at any time, that he could use the 

phone free of charge to call an attorney, that an attorney would be provided if he could not afford 

one, that he could stop the interview at any time, and that the interrogating officer could be 

called upon to testify regarding the interview. Defendant did not challenge this evidence in the 

trial court. Moreover, the trial court found that the police “conscientiously adhered to the verbal 

formula of the Miranda decision” in advising defendant of his rights, and defendant does not 

challenge that finding on appeal. Apart from the attorney contact issue, the trial court never 

identified any basis for finding that defendant’s Miranda waiver was not knowingly and 

intelligently made. In addition, defendant has not offered, either below or on appeal, any other 

reason for finding that his Miranda waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made. The 

parties dispute, however, whether defendant’s Miranda waiver and subsequent police statements 

were voluntarily made. 

 Although this Court reviews a trial court’s determination of voluntariness de novo, 

People v Eliason, 300 Mich App 293, 304; 833 NW2d 357 (2013), the trial court’s assessment of 

the credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded to the evidence is given deference. 

People v Ryan, 295 Mich App 388, 396; 819 NW2d 55 (2012). The trial court’s factual findings 

are reviewed for clear error and will be affirmed unless this Court is left with a definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake was made. People v Gipson, 287 Mich App 261, 264; 787 NW2d 126 

(2010). 

 To determine whether a statement is voluntary, the police conduct must be examined. 

Tierney, 266 Mich App at 707. “[W]hether a waiver of Miranda rights is voluntary depends on 

the absence of police coercion.” People v Daoud, 462 Mich 621, 635; 614 NW2d 152 (2000). 

The prosecutor bears the burden of proving voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Id. at 634. In determining voluntariness, a court should examine the totality of the following 

relevant circumstances: the age of the accused; his education or intelligence level; his prior 

experience with the police; the duration and intensity of the questioning; the length of the 

detention before the statement; the lack of any advice of constitutional rights; the delay in 

bringing the defendant before a magistrate; the health of the accused; the deprivation of food, 
-7- 

sleep, or medical attention for the accused; any abuse of the accused; and any threatened abuse 

of the accused. People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 334; 429 NW2d 781 (1988); Ryan, 295 Mich 

App at 396-397; Tierney, 266 Mich App at 708. These factors present an objective standard for 

concluding whether Miranda rights were validly waived. Daoud, 462 Mich at 634. No single 

factor is conclusive. People v Sexton (After Remand), 461 Mich 746, 753; 609 NW2d 822 

(2000). The ultimate test of admissibility addresses whether the totality of the circumstances 

involving the elicitation of the confession or statement indicates that it was freely and voluntarily 

made. Cipriano, 431 Mich at 334; Ryan, 295 Mich App at 397. 

 Although the trial court purported to consider the totality of the circumstances, it did not 

discuss any factor other than the failure to notify defendant that an attorney was attempting to 

contact him. Defendant argues that the coercive circumstances leading up to his police interview 

and his lack of sleep rendered his statements involuntary. Conflicting testimony was presented 

regarding how much sleep defendant had before the interview and the extent to which a lack of 

sleep may have affected defendant’s ability to freely and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. 

Conflicting testimony was also presented regarding the circumstances of defendant’s 

confinement at his home before he was taken for the interview, including whether he was 

segregated from his mother or prohibited from communicating with her, and the reason for his 

removal from the home and placement in a police vehicle before he was taken for the interview. 

The trial court did not render any factual findings regarding these circumstances, or the extent to 

which they may have affected defendant’s ability to freely and voluntarily waive his Miranda

rights. 

 In Tanner, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing the defendant’s 

statements because it was based solely on the failure of the police to inform the defendant of an 

attorney’s efforts to contact him. Although the Court held that the failure to impart such 

information does not invalidate an otherwise voluntary, knowing, and intelligent Miranda

waiver, it did not affirmatively determine whether the defendant’s statements were otherwise 

voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Instead, it reversed the trial court’s suppression order and 

remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Tanner, 496 Mich at 256-257. We 

conclude that this same remedy is appropriate in this case. “Determination of the issue of 

voluntariness and resolution of the facts with respect to which there is conflicting testimony are 

decisions to be made initially by the trial court.” People v White, 401 Mich 482, 494; 257 NW2d 

912 (1977). Because there is conflicting testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding 

defendant’s statements, and the trial court did not render findings of fact or determine the 

voluntariness of defendant’s statements in light of the totality of the other relevant 

circumstances, we remand this case to the trial court for a determination of whether defendant’s 

statements were voluntary. 

 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not 

retain jurisdiction. 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

/s/ David H. Sawyer 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell