Case Name: PEOPLE v. LASLEY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-02-03
Citations: 21 Mich. App. 340
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,658
Parties: PEOPLE v. LASLEY
Judges: Before: Quinn, P. J., and Bronson and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 21
Pages: 340–351

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. LASLEY
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Evidence—Witnesses—Leading Questions— Discretion.
A witness may be asked leading questions within the discretion of the trial court (MCLA § 768.24).
2. Criminal Law — Evidence—Witnesses—Leading Questions— Use.
Permitting prosecuting attorney to use leading questions during' an evidentiary hearing examination of a detective who had interrogated defendant while he was in custody for breaking and entering was not reversible error (MCLA § 768.24).
3. Criminal Law — Extrajudicial Statement — -Admissibility'—Ai>-' peal and Error.
A finding that defendant’s extrajudicial statement, made during in-custody interrogation, was voluntary and admissible will not be disturbed upon appeal unless that finding is clearly erroneous where the reeord discloses that defendant was effectively advised of his right to have appointed counsel present during his custodial interrogation.
4. Criminal Law — Evidence—Evidentiary Hearing — Extrajudicial Statement — Admissibility.
Admission of defendant’s in-custody statement was not error, even assuming that Eederal standards for interrogating suspects in custody were not met, where the only effect of the statement was to place Mm at the scene of the breaking and entering of a gas station and he was apprehended there (MCLA § 750.110).
References for Points in Headnotes
58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 570.
58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 569.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 368.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 317.
58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 568 et seq.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 316, 317, 446.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 555-557.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 529, 533, 537, 542-554, 582.
Dissenting Opinion
Bronson, J.
5. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Right to Counsel.
Warning given to defendant before interrogation that “if he should require an attorney, that if the matter was taken into court, the court would appoint one for him, if it saw fit,” did not comply with the Federal requirement that a suspect must be advised of his constitutional right to legal counsel because the import of that statement to defendant was that he had conditional right to appointed counsel,
6. Criminal Law — Evidence—Witnesses—Leading Questions— Propriety.
A question designed to obtain a witness’ acquiescence in a false suggestion is improper, even though leading questions im criminal cases may be permitted (MCLA § 768.24).
7. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — In-Custody Interrogation — Right to Counsel.
A suspect does not waive his right to counsel when he answers some questions or gives some information on his own before invoking his right to remain silent when interrogated.
8. Criminal Law — New Trial — Evidence—Confession—Admissibility.
Admission of defendant’s in-custody confession, made while he was without counsel, which clearly placed him at the scene of the breaking and entering with which he was charged, was reversible error even though a policeman had testified earlier to substantially the same evidence where there could be no reasonable doubt of the effect on the jury of defendant’s own confirming testimony.
9. Criminal Law — -Evidence—Involuntary Confession — Admissibility — Error.
Introduction of an involuntary confession is never harmless error.
Appeal from Genesee, Anthony J. Mansonr, J. Submitted Division 2 October 8, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 5,658.)
Decided February 3, 1970.
Leave to appeal granted, decision of the Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded for new trial with directions on June 9, 1970.
383 Mich 787.
Larry Lasley was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Appellate Attorney, and Roger W. Kittendorf, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Carl L. Bekofslce, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Quinn, P. J., and Bronson and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Quinn, P. J.
Defendant's jury trial resulted in his conviction of breaking and entering. MCLA §750.110 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev §28.305). He was sentenced and he appeals.
' In the early morning hours of August 16, 1967, a police officer responding to a request that he investigate at a gasoline station entered the station. There he discovered defendant crouched down behind an overturned cigarette machine. Defendant was then handcuffed, searched and taken to the police station where he was interrogated. At this interrogation, defendant admitted being present at the gas station.
On appeal, defendant contends reversible error was committed at a Walker-type hearing when the prosecuting attorney was permitted to use leading-questions during the interrogation of the investigating detective. Under MCLA § 768.24 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1047) and People v. George Johnson (1966), 5 Mich App 257, the record does not support this- contention.
Defendant further contends that his statement, during in-custody interrogation, which gave rise to the W alker-tjpe hearing, was inadmissible because the record does not disclose that defendant was effectively advised of his right to have appointed counsel present during custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 US 436 (86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974).
At the conclusion of the W alker-type. hearing, the trial judge found that the statement was voluntary and admissible. We do not disturb such a finding' unless it was clearly erroneous. People v. Walker (1967), 6 Mich App 600. Here, the record amply supports the trial court, and also discloses that defendant was effectively advised of his right to have appointed counsel present during custodial interrogation. People v. Townsend (1969), 17 Mich App. 267.
In addition, and assuming arguendo that the standards of Miranda, supra, were not met, we can find no reversible error in the admission of defendant's statement. Harrington v. California (1969), 395 US 250 (89 S Ct 1726, 23 L Ed 2d 284). . The only effect of the statement was to place defendant at the scene of the crime, and he was apprehended at the scene of the crime.
Affirmed.
T. M. Burns, J., concurred.
People v. Walker (On Rehearing, 1965), 374 Mich 331.