Opinion ID: 1709625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: People v. Sexton

Text: On September 8, 1993, Damian Phillips was shot and killed. Defendant Sexton and two other young men were at the scene of the crime when the police arrived. After initial questioning, they agreed to go to the police station and give statements about the incident. [2] Detective Melvin Marchlones questioned the defendant. [3] According to testimony given at the suppression hearing, Marchlones told the defendant that he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. In the defendant's first statement, taken about 2:23 p.m., defendant denied all culpability. Sexton's statement was not consistent with those of the other men. Upon being confronted with the inconsistencies, he gave another statement about 4:00 p.m., claiming that the gun slipped through the victim's fingers, fell to the floor, and discharged. He testified that he asked to telephone his father before making the second statement and was told that he could do so later. Defendant agreed to take a polygraph test. Marchlones reminded him that he was not under arrest and reviewed the Miranda [4] warnings. Defendant indicated that he understood and agreed to waive his rights. Before going to Southfield for the polygraph test, defendant gave a third statement, claiming that the gun discharged accidently. Defendant was taken to the Southfield police station for a polygraph examination. Before the test began at 7:10 p.m., the polygraph examiner reviewed the Miranda rights. Mr. Sexton again stated that he understood the rights and would waive them. In the meantime, at approximately 4:45 p.m., the defendant's father arrived at the Hazel Park police station and attempted to see his son. His request was denied. At approximately 5:00 p.m., the senior Mr. Sexton contacted his attorney, Neil Miller. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Miller called the Hazel Park Police Department, identified himself as defendant Sexton's attorney, and left a message asking that whoever was holding the defendant to return his call. Mr. Miller first arrived at the police station at approximately 7:00 p.m., where he informed the desk officer that he represented the defendant, that he wanted to see his client, and that he wanted all questioning stopped. Mr. Miller was told that the defendant was not at the police station, but was not told where he was. The desk officer refused to contact Marchlones. Miller left the police station and wrote a statement reiterating that he was defendant Sexton's lawyer and that he wanted all questioning stopped. He returned to the police station at 10:20 p.m. and delivered the statement to the desk officer, who paged Marchlones and told him that there was a lawyer at the station who wanted to speak with Corey Sexton. [5] After the polygraph was completed, the examiner advised Sexton that in his opinion defendant's answers had not been truthful. Defendant's response was monitored and he admitted that he intentionally shot Phillips. Sexton was then placed under arrest and again advised of his constitutional rights. Defendant stated that he understood the rights and did not want to talk to a lawyer before further questioning. Defendant gave a recorded statement in which he again admitted that he intentionally shot his cousin. This final statement was given at 11:35 p.m. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.316(1)(a); MSA 28.548(1)(a), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). The defense filed a motion to suppress the defendant's inculpatory statements, but the trial court found that the statements were freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made, and denied the motion. [6] Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.317; MSA 28.549, conditioned on a right to challenge the admissibility of the confessions on appeal. Sexton was sentenced to twenty to forty years for the offense, plus two years for the felony-firearm violation. While defendant's appeal was pending, this Court decided People v. Bender, supra . In an unpublished opinion per curiam, issued December 20, 1996 (Docket No. 177061), the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, concluding that suppression was mandated regarding all statements made after 5:30 p.m. [7] We granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal.