Court Opinion

ID: 9679129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:41:32.78667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:10.493039
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the decision reached by my colleagues regarding the failure of the officers to provide the defendant with the Miranda warning upon questioning him at the bar.
Although the defendant was not detained for a substantial period of time, it is quite clear that the defendant was isolated during the period of interrogation. The record clearly reveals that the accusatorial finger had indeed been pointed specifically at Eleuterio Pantoja. Pantoja was the prime and only suspect with respect to the incident which resulted in the death of Estel Ray Caldwell.
*689Under the circumstances, I conclude that the isolated questioning provided sufficient custodial duress to require adherence to the principles laid down in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 US 436 (86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974). See People v. Gilbert (1970), 21 Mich App 442. Since the officers failed to provide defendant with the Miranda warnings, I would remand for a new trial, excluding testimony by the officers regarding the conversation with the defendant at the bar.