Case Name: PEOPLE v. KUSOWSKI
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-10-19
Citations: 71 Mich. App. 730
Docket Number: Docket No. 25279
Parties: PEOPLE v KUSOWSKI
Judges: Before: R. B.. Burns, P. J., and M. J. Kelly and S. S. Hughes, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 71
Pages: 730–735

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v KUSOWSKI
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Evidence—Involuntary Statements.
Evidence secured as a result of involuntary statements made by a defendant to the police is inadmissible at the defendant’s trial.
2. Criminal Law — Evidence—Witnesses—Identity of Witnesses— Involuntary Statements.
Any witness whose identity is discovered as a result of involuntary statements made by a defendant, and any physical evidence developed therefrom, may not be admitted at the defendant’s trial.
3. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Identity op Witnesses — Illegally Obtained Statements.
A witness whose identity is discovered as a result of statements illegally obtained from a defendant may not be allowed to testify at the defendant’s trial.
Dissent by M. J. Kelly, J.
4. Witnesses — Identity op Witnesses — Testimony—Exclusion op Testimony.
A bare ñnding that the identity of a witness was learned by illegal means is insufficient to warrant the exclusion of the witness’s testimony.
5. Witnesses — Exclusionary Rule.
The exclusionary rule, forbidding the use of illegally acquired evidence, should not be applied to witnesses in the same way that it is applied to verbal statements and physical evidence.
References for Points in Headnotes
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 529.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 33.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 408.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 408 et seq.
6. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Exclusionary Rule.
A court must consider the following factors in order to determine whether the exclusionary rule, forbidding the use of illegally acquired evidence, should be applied to a witness: (1) how great a part the particular manifestation of "individual human personality” played in the ultimate receipt of the testimony in question; (2) whether there are indications in the record that mere knowledge of the witness’s identity would not inevitably guarantee that his testimony would be favorable to the prosecution; and (3) whether the witness might eventually have voluntarily gone to the police even without their knowing his identity.
7. Criminal Law — Evidence—Fruit of Poisoned Tree — Illegal Confessions.
The fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is operative to exclude evidence, assuming an illegal confession, where a causal chain is shown to exist from the primary illegality to the procurement of and the effect upon the substance of the evidence sought to be employed.
8. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Identity of Witnesses — Illegal Admissions — Exclusion of Witnesses.
Several questions should be answered before ruling on a motion to suppress a witness’s testimony where the identity of the witness was discovered through admissions obtained illegally from the defendant: (1) if it be assumed that no statement had been made by the defendant to the police, would the witness have come forward voluntarily; (2) if not, would the police have reasonably been expected to learn the witness’s identity by an independent investigation; and (3) apart from revealing the witness’s identity, to what use, if any, was the illegally obtained information put in procuring the testimony of the witness and in affecting the substance thereof.
Appeal from Saginaw, Fred J. Borchard, J.
Submitted June 10, 1976, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 25279.)
Decided October 19, 1976.
Leave to appeal applied for.
John Kusowski was convicted of murder in the second degree. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, E. Brady Denton, Prosecuting Attorney, and Peter C Jensen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
H. William Martin, for defendant.
Before: R. B.. Burns, P. J., and M. J. Kelly and S. S. Hughes, JJ.
Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P. J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, MCLA 750.317; MSA 28.549. He appeals and we reverse.
Defendant was interrogated by police officers prior to his arrest. He informed the police that he had gone directly from the house of the deceased to the room of his friends Bob Sovine and Dick Ban. As a result of his statement the police interviewed Sovine and Ban.
Prior to trial defendant moved to suppress from evidence any statements made by him to the police, claiming they were illegally obtained. The trial judge granted the motion.
At trial defendant moved to prohibit the people from using Sovine and Ban as witnesses on the basis that their identities were obtained by the defendant's illegal admissions. The trial judge denied the motion and permitted Sovine and Ban to testify.
In People v Robinson, 48 Mich App 253, 260; 210 NW2d 372, 376 (1973), lv den, 390 Mich 793 (1973), this Court stated:
"We are therefore compelled to agree with the defendant that any evidence secured as a result of his involuntary statements is inadmissible. Any witness whose identity was discovered as a result of those statements, or any physical evidence developed therefrom, may not be admitted upon defendant's trial."
It was error for the trial judge to admit the testimony of Sovine and Ban.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
S. S. Hughes, J., concurred.