People v. Ball

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Ball

165 N.W.2d 898, 15 Mich. App. 5, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 766

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 1968

DocketDocket 2,744

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 N.W.2d 898 (People v. Ball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ball, 165 N.W.2d 898, 15 Mich. App. 5, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 766 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree. 1 On appeal be *6 asserts that prejudicial error was committed at trial when his confessions were admitted into evidence. Defendant alleges that the confessions were not freely given and, assuming arguendo that they were voluntarily given, in light of People v. Hamilton (1960), 359 Mich 410, the confessions were not admissible for the reason that they were made during a period of illegal detention.

Subsequent to conviction, a Walker hearing 2 was conducted by the court and a determination made that the confessions were voluntary. We concur in that determination. At the evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of the confessions, the court inquired into facts and circumstances attending the arrest, detention and ultimate confessions made by defendant prior to arraignment on the warrant. Between the arrest and the confession, a period of approximately 26 hours, the officers checked out 2 different alibis offered by defendant.

Unlike the factual situation in People v. Hamilton, supra, the record does not support the contention that the delay in arraignment was “done for prolonged interrogatory purposes and without proven justification of the delay.” People v. Hamilton, supra, p 417. The proceedings were still at a stage ■where there was bona fide questioning to determine the immediate issue of release or complaint. The record does not show that defendant was detained for the purpose of sweating a confession. See People v. Ubbes (1965), 374 Mich 571; People v. Farmer (1968), 380 Mich 198.

■ Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and J. H. G-illis and Beer, JJ., concurred.

1

CL 1948, § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).

2

People v. Walker (On Rehearing, 1965), 374 Mich 331.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree. 1 On appeal be *6 asserts that prejudicial error was committed at trial when his confessions were admitted into evidence. Defendant alleges that the confessions were not freely given and, assuming arguendo that they were voluntarily given, in light of People v. Hamilton (1960), 359 Mich 410, the confessions were not admissible for the reason that they were made during a period of illegal detention.

Subsequent to conviction, a Walker hearing 2 was conducted by the court and a determination made that the confessions were voluntary. We concur in that determination. At the evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of the confessions, the court inquired into facts and circumstances attending the arrest, detention and ultimate confessions made by defendant prior to arraignment on the warrant. Between the arrest and the confession, a period of approximately 26 hours, the officers checked out 2 different alibis offered by defendant.

Unlike the factual situation in People v. Hamilton, supra, the record does not support the contention that the delay in arraignment was “done for prolonged interrogatory purposes and without proven justification of the delay.” People v. Hamilton, supra, p 417. The proceedings were still at a stage ■where there was bona fide questioning to determine the immediate issue of release or complaint. The record does not show that defendant was detained for the purpose of sweating a confession. See People v. Ubbes (1965), 374 Mich 571; People v. Farmer (1968), 380 Mich 198.

■ Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and J. H. G-illis and Beer, JJ., concurred.

1

CL 1948, § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).

2

People v. Walker (On Rehearing, 1965), 374 Mich 331.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 898, 15 Mich. App. 5, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ball-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack