Preserve Your Miranda Rights

If you are under arrest, tell the police that you want to speak to an attorney, and STOP TALKING!

Issues: Whether the defendant was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona; Whether his statements to police were voluntary; People v. Walker; People v. Daoud;People v. Ray; Colorado v. Spring; People v. Gipson; Right against self-incrimination; U.S. Const. amend. V; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 17; Whether police violated defendant's right to counsel; People v. Tanner; People v. Adams; Principle that after a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney; Davis v. United States

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: People v. Koonce

e-Journal Number: 59727

Judge(s): Per Curiam - O'Connell, Fort Hood, and Gadola

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that the defendant waived his right to the presence of counsel, by admitting defendant's confession, or by failing to suppress his statements. He was convicted of second-degree home invasion and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to serve a term of 15 to 40 years' imprisonment. After being arrested, the police read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant claimed he immediately requested counsel, while the police contended that he spoke to them at length before making his request. The trial court found that his statements were voluntary, that the officers did not violate Miranda when obtaining his statements, and that he voluntarily waived his rights. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his confession was inadmissible because the police continued to question him after he requested counsel's

presence in the interrogation room. "While the trial court did not expressly find that [defendant] had not requested an attorney, this finding is implied from its finding that [he] waived his rights and its decision to admit" his statements. It also rejected his argument that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress his statements because the statements were not voluntary. "The trial court considered [his] age, education, experience, intelligence, mental and physical state, and promises of leniency, and found that these factors weighed in favor of a voluntary confession." Affirmed.