Court Opinion

ID: 9674894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:59.047286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:30.099108
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). While I agree with the majority’s disposition of defendant’s first issue, I must dissent to its resolution of whether defendant’s statements may be used to impeach her if she testifies contrary to those statements at trial.
In Harris v New York, 401 US 222; 91 S Ct 643; 28 L Ed 2d 1 (1971), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether defendant’s otherwise inadmissible statement could be used during trial to impeach him where he took the stand and testified contrary to his prior statement. During his trial for selling heroin, defendant testified that he never sold anything but baking powder to an undercover police officer. On cross-examination, the prosecutor *341was allowed to impeach defendant by using statements made by him which were inadmissible because they were taken in violation of Miranda. Noting that some language in Miranda could be used to support the proposition that such statements could not be used to impeach defendant, the Court refused to give this language controlling effect. Id., 224. The Court reasoned that, although the statements were obtained in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights, this fact did not allow the defendant to resort to perjurious testimony in reliance upon the government’s inability to challenge his credibility. Id., 224. The Court held that while defendant’s statements were inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief, they were admissible to impeach defendant’s testimony which was contrary to the inculpatory statements. Id., 225.
Similar results were reached in Oregon v Hass, 420 US 714; 95 S Ct 1215; 43 L Ed 2d 570 (1975), People v Graham, 386 Mich 452; 192 NW2d 255 (1971), and People v Dyson, 106 Mich App 90; 307 NW2d 739 (1981).
While the majority recognizes the holdings of Harris and Hass, it cites Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385; 98 S Ct 2408; 57 L Ed 2d 290 (1978), for the proposition that defendant’s statement was involuntary and therefore inadmissible for any reason. I read Mincey differently and am unable to agree. In Mincey, defendant’s statement was taken while he was in the intensive care unit of a hospital. He was in serious pain and had various tubes inserted into his body. On a number of occasions, defendant requested that the questioning be stopped and he requested an attorney twice. Despite defendant’s weakened condition, and ignoring his request, the police continued to question him until they had his confession. The United *342States Supreme Court found that Mincey’s statements could not be used for any purpose during his trial.
In this case, defendant was not subjected to any type of coercive interrogation as was the defendant in Mincey. While she was unaware of her attorney’s proposed condition for the polygraph test, she had been instructed by her attorney that she could cancel the interrogation at any time. Furthermore, she was given her Miranda warnings prior to the questioning. There was no evidence that defendant was unable to understand or assert her rights or that she requested an attorney. At no time during the questioning did she request that the interrogation be terminated. I do not find the facts in this case similar to those in Mincey, and I am not convinced that defendant’s statement was intellectually involuntary. It must be suppressed for violation of a prophylactic rule, but that does not mean its use for impeachment purposes is prohibited or violates any perceived public policy. The question of her credibility if she takes the stand and testifies contrary to her statements to the interrogating officer should be weighed by the trier of fact.
I believe the trial court erred in refusing to permit the prosecution to use the defendant’s admissions to impeach her because the interview was in violation of her constitutional rights. While this was a valid reason for excluding her statements from the prosecutor’s case-in-chief, it would not be sufficient to exclude the use of the statements for impeachment purposes. I would find the trial court’s ruling that defendant’s statements were inadmissible for impeachment purposes was error.