BY TRACEY MARTIN (WAYNE)JUVENILE CASELAW UPDATE by Tracey Martin (Wayne County) DELINQUENCY CASE: In re NC, Minor, ____ Mich App____ (November 21, 2023), No. 361548, Alger Circuit Court, Family Division LC No. 20-004569-DL Respondent-Appellee COURT: Michigan Court of Appeals (FOR PUBLICATION) JUDGES: GLEICHER, SWARTZLE, and YATES ISSUES: Motion to suppress; Whether a juvenile in a school or a principal’s office is in custody for purposes of the Miranda v Arizona warnings; People v Mayes; JDB v North Carolina; In the Matter of DAH (NC App); Holguin v Harrison (ND CA); MH v State (FL App); BA v State (IN); In re LG (OH App); NC v Commonwealth (KY); In re Welfare of MAK (MN App) SUMMARY: Noting that no binding Michigan case law had substantively addressed the situation at issue, the court held that the trial court properly suppressed respondent-NC’s statements made to police in the school principal’s office, finding the interview custodial and Miranda warnings were required. As there was no binding Michigan case law on the role of “questioning a juvenile in a school or a principal’s office” in the Miranda custody analysis, the court considered cases from other jurisdictions. Finding those cases persuasive, the court held “that while the fact that police questioning occurred at school or in a principal’s office alone is not dispositive of custody, it is still a highly relevant factor to consider in a Miranda custody analysis involving juveniles at school. Indeed, the movements of a juvenile at school are generally restricted in ways not ordinarily applicable to adults. Thus, that a juvenile was interviewed by law enforcement at school or in a principal’s office, along with the circumstances surrounding the questioning, are relevant considerations in a custody analysis.”
0 Comments
BY TRACEY MARTIN (WAYNE)DELINQUENCYCASE: In re EE, Minor, ____ Mich App____ (April 13, 2023), No. 358457, Eaton Circuit Court COURT: Michigan Court of Appeals (FOR PUBLICATION) JUDGES: Gleicher, Boonstra, and Cameron; Concurrence – Gleicher; Separate Concurrence - Cameron and Boonstra ISSUES: Right to counsel in truancy proceedings under MCL 712A.17c & MCR 3.915(a); MCL 712A.2(a)(4); Juvenile waiver of right to counsel; MCL 712A.17c(3); MCR 3.915(A)(3); People v Anderson; Unequivocal request to proceed pro se; Knowing, intelligent & voluntary waiver; Whether acting as own counsel would disrupt, unduly inconvenience, & burden the trial court & the administration of its business; Requirement that an attorney be appointed for a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding if the trial court determines it is in the juvenile’s best interests; MCR 3.915(2)(e) BY ARIANA HEATH (GENESEE COUNTY)DELIQUENCYIn re ZJF, March 10, 2022, No. 356525, Wayne Circuit Court – Juvenile was charged with CSC 1st and adjudicated at a jury trial. Juvenile moved for a new trial, alleging the prosecutor improperly suppressed material evidence in a Brady violation. Juvenile alleged the prosecutor withheld a police report from Livonia which included a statement from the victim in which she told investigators the encounter might have been consensual. Juvenile argued he was denied a fair trial because this evidence could have been used for impeachment purposes. The trial court found that the information in the Livonia police report was simply quoting another police report from the Westland police department and because the juvenile had access to the Westland report, there was no violation. COA affirmed the trial court. For a Brady violation to occur, one, the evidence must be favorable to the accused because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; two, that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and three, prejudice must have ensued. COA ruled no Brady violation occurred and a new trial was not warranted. The Livonia report largely concerned events occurring after and unrelated to the instant case. The relevant portion quoted a report from the Westland police department, not a direct statement of the victim. The Westland report was provided to the juvenile through discovery before trial. Juvenile had the necessary information to impeach the victim. COA further stated the Livonia report was inadmissible hearsay and therefore was not favorable nor material evidence under Brady. And the Livonia report was double hearsay, as it was quoting the Westland report. Because the report is inadmissible, it cannot meet the first prong of Brady. Affirmed
|
EDITOR-IN-CHIEFEDITORIAL STAFFArchives
February 2024
Categories
All
|
© 2022-2023 Referees Association of Michigan
|
|