Court Opinion

ID: 9702727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:22:02.635811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.936729
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
(concurring). I completely agree with the majority’s analysis under the test of admissibility formulated by a majority in People v Banks, 438 Mich 408; 475 NW2d 769 (1991). I write separately to indicate my continued belief that this Court should adopt the "facially incriminating” test for redacted confessions as provided by a majority of the United States Supreme Court in Richardson v Marsh, 481 US 200, 209; 107 S Ct 1702; 95 L Ed 2d 176 (1987). See Banks, supra at 436-447 (Riley, J., dissenting). While the majority of this Court in Banks adopted the reasoning of Justice Stevens’ dissent in the Richardson case, I noted in my dissenting opinion in Banks that the federal courts have had no problem applying the "facially incriminating” test advocated by the Richardson majority. Banks, supra at 444-445. See also, e.g., United States v Gio, 7 F3d 1279, 1287 (CA 7, 1993).
Boyle, J., concurred with Riley, J.