Opinion ID: 1709625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: People v. Davis

Text: Defendant Clifton Davis 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), in connection with the shooting death of Allen Murriel on March 10, 1993. [8] When the police arrived, the defendant and his brother were arrested. Defendant's mother retained Elliot Margolis to represent her sons. Mr. Margolis and Mrs. Davis agreed to meet at police headquarters at 8:10 p.m. According to testimony given at the suppression hearing, the defendant signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and agreed to be interviewed at 7:45 p.m. Sergeant Deborah Monti began questioning him at police headquarters. Mrs. Davis and Mr. Margolis met at the front door of police headquarters at 8:10 p.m. Mrs. Davis paid Margolis the agreed retainer fee, and he immediately went upstairs to locate the defendant and his brother. Margolis told the desk officer that he had been retained to represent the Davis brothers. The officer told Margolis that he was not certain of the location of Sergeant Monti or the defendant. According to the testimony of Sergeant Monti, she began taking defendant's statement at 8:20 p.m. and finished at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Margolis' version of the facts differs slightly. He testified that he saw Monti move Edward Davis from one room to another at 8:45 p.m. According to Margolis, Monti told Margolis at that time that she had already taken a confession from the defendant. At trial, the defendant moved to suppress the confession, contending that suppression was required because the police failed to tell defendant that his counsel wanted to see him. The trial court granted the motion to suppress pursuant to People v. Wright, 441 Mich. 140, 490 N.W.2d 351 (1992). The trial court acknowledged the possibility that the defendant had given at least part of his statement before the attorney arrived, but suppressed the entire statement. The Court of Appeals granted the prosecutor's interlocutory application for leave to appeal. While that appeal was pending, this Court decided Bender. The Court of Appeals issued a peremptory affirmance of the trial court order. We granted the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal.