Opinion
Docket No. 63834.
Decided June 17, 1982.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, Edward J. Grant, Prosecuting Attorney, and John L. Wildeboer, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Ronald J. Bretz, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant on appeal.
Before: BEASLEY, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and MacKENZIE, JJ.
ON REMAND
By order of the Supreme Court dated April 12, 1982, we are required to reconsider, in light of People v Paintman and People v Conklin.
People v Bladel, 413 Mich. 864; 317 N.W.2d 855 (1982).
These two cases are reported together, 412 Mich. 518; 315 N.W.2d 418 (1982).
In Paintman the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress a statement given by the defendant to the police. The trial court ruled, following a Walker hearing, that the statement should be excluded because it was involuntary. The Court of Appeals reversed, in an unpublished opinion, stating that the statements were voluntary and admissible. In Conklin the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress a confession he gave sheriffs officers holding that the statement had been made voluntarily and in compliance with Miranda. Conklin was, thereafter, convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in an unpublished per curiam opinion. On the appeal of these cases to the Supreme Court, the Court held in a unanimous opinion written by Justice FITZGERALD that the defendants' convictions must be reversed and the cases remanded for new trials, at which statements made without the requested assistance of counsel could not be admitted.
People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich. 331; 132 N.W.2d 87 (1965).
Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).
Paintman and Conklin, supra, 522.
We read Paintman and Conklin in conjunction with the Supreme Court's order of remand in the within case to compel reversal. There is no necessity to repeat what was already said in our previous opinion affirming defendant's conviction.
People v Bladel, 106 Mich. App. 397; 308 N.W.2d 230 (1981).
The Supreme Court requests us to comment regarding "defendant's second issue on appeal".
In the brief filed with this Court, in his second issue, defendant claimed a Bobo violation in two respects: first, obtaining testimony from a police witness that defendant remained silent when taken into custody and, second, when the prosecutor, in closing argument, used the fact of defendant's silence and of defendant's failure to offer an exculpatory explanation.
People v Bobo, 390 Mich. 355; 212 N.W.2d 190 (1973).
We held in our previous opinion that since there was neither objection made at trial nor manifest injustice present, the issue was not preserved for review. Regarding the merits, if objection had been made, we would believe it should have been sustained.
Since we reverse in accordance with the Supreme Court order, further comment would be redundant.
Reversed and remanded.