Court Opinion

ID: 9658376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:57:09.311357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:54.139444
License: Public Domain

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.
*343Defendant 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.