Opinion
Docket No. 147434. COA No. 313207.
2014-03-28
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Roderique Lareese ROLARK, Defendant–Appellee.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2013 WL 2278083.
Order
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, 226 N.W. 854 (1929) (stating that for the privilege to apply, “the relation of attorney and client must exist”); Devich v. Dick, 177 Mich. 173, 178, 143 N.W. 56 (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).