People of Michigan v. Roderique Lareese Rolark

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Roderique Lareese Rolark

DecidedMarch 28, 2014

Docket147434

StatusPublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Roderique Lareese Rolark (People of Michigan v. Roderique Lareese Rolark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of Michigan v. Roderique Lareese Rolark, (Mich. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

March 28, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

147434 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, David F. Viviano, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 147434 COA: 313207 Kalamazoo CC: 2012-000303-FC RODERIQUE LAREESE ROLARK, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent and would grant leave to appeal to consider (a) whether the trial court clearly erred by determining that a document discovered in defendant’s prison cell, appearing to police to contain a detailed and first-hand confession by defendant of his involvement in a homicide for which he was then under investigation, was “intended for counsel” and therefore properly suppressed and (b) whether the Court of Appeals in its characterization of the scope of the attorney-client privilege in Michigan erroneously or inadvertently expanded the traditional understanding of the privilege to encompass communications intended for yet-unidentified attorneys. See Watson v Detroit Free Press, 248 Mich 237, 240 (1929) (stating that for the privilege to apply, “the relation of attorney and client must exist”); Devich v Dick, 177 Mich 173, 178 (1913) (stating that the defendant need not have formally retained an attorney for this privilege to exist, but he must have “‘consult[ed] with an attorney in his professional capacity, with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and [if] the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established’”) (citation omitted).

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. March 28, 2014 h0325 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

March 28, 2014 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

147434 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, David F. Viviano, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 147434 COA: 313207 Kalamazoo CC: 2012-000303-FC RODERIQUE LAREESE ROLARK, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent and would grant leave to appeal to consider (a) whether the trial court clearly erred by determining that a document discovered in defendant’s prison cell, appearing to police to contain a detailed and first-hand confession by defendant of his involvement in a homicide for which he was then under investigation, was “intended for counsel” and therefore properly suppressed and (b) whether the Court of Appeals in its characterization of the scope of the attorney-client privilege in Michigan erroneously or inadvertently expanded the traditional understanding of the privilege to encompass communications intended for yet-unidentified attorneys. See Watson v Detroit Free Press, 248 Mich 237, 240 (1929) (stating that for the privilege to apply, “the relation of attorney and client must exist”); Devich v Dick, 177 Mich 173, 178 (1913) (stating that the defendant need not have formally retained an attorney for this privilege to exist, but he must have “‘consult[ed] with an attorney in his professional capacity, with the view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and [if] the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as established’”) (citation omitted).

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. March 28, 2014 h0325 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Roderique Lareese Rolark, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-roderique-lareese-rolark-mich-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack