PEOPLE OF MI V EUGENE WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 31, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 234442
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-011044
EUGENE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
COOPER, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion of my colleagues, as I believe that the
trial court did not err in ordering the suppression of defendant’s confession.
Defendant, a minor, confessed to capital charges without the benefit of the presence of
his parent or guardian. Although he knew defendant was a minor, Officer Derryck Thomas
admittedly interrogated defendant before confirming that someone had attempted to contact his
parents. Officer Thomas failed to contact defendant’s parents himself because “it wasn’t [his]
job.” Furthermore, no one attempted to contact defendant’s parents while he waited for several
hours at the police station to be transferred to a youth home following his interrogation.
This Court has often found juvenile confessions admissible where the juvenile was not
brought immediately before the juvenile court, but the juvenile’s parent or guardian has been
present or was contacted in those situations.1 It is clear in the court rules and juvenile code that a
1
See People v Hana, 443 Mich 202, 205-206; 504 NW2d 166 (1993) (the police attempted to
contact defendant’s parents, but defendant continued to incriminate himself after several
warnings to remain silent until his parent or attorney arrived); People v Givans, 227 Mich App
113, 116; 575 NW2d 84 (1997) (the police contacted the defendant’s mother who consented to
an interrogation outside of her presence); People v Rode, 196 Mich App 58, 70; 492 NW2d 483
(1992), rev’d sub nom in part on other grounds Hana, supra (both the defendant and his mother
signed the waiver form and mother remained throughout interrogation); People v Good, 186
Mich App 180, 183, 190; 463 NW2d 213 (1990) (the defendant was interrogated in the presence
of his parent); People v Irby, 129 Mich App 306, 320-321; 342 NW2d 303 (1983) (both
defendant and his step-father signed the waiver form and step-father remained throughout
interrogation); People v Inman, 54 Mich App 5, 10; 220 NW2d 165 (1974) (the defendant
(continued…)
-1-
juvenile’s parent or guardian must be contacted immediately when he or she is taken into
custody.2 The court rule and statute are not discretionary; the immediate notification of the
juvenile’s parent or guardian is mandatory.3
The officers arresting and interrogating defendant knowingly violated this clear rule.
Combined with the facts that Officer Thomas told defendant that an attorney was not
immediately available for him and failed to ascertain defendant’s actual level of understanding,
the trial court properly ordered the suppression of defendant’s statement. I would, therefore,
affirm.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
(…continued)
indicated that he did not want his parents present for the interrogation).
2
See MCR 3.933(C) (the arresting officer must notify the court immediately when he has
detained a juvenile, but is unable to reach the parent or guardian to promptly take custody of the
juvenile); MCL 712A.14(1) (the arresting officer “shall immediately attempt to notify” the
parent or guardian of a juvenile who has been detained).
3
See People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 542; 520 NW2d 123 (1994) (“[U]se of the term ‘shall’
rather than ‘may’ indicates mandatory rather than discretionary action.”); Old Kent Bank v Kal
Kustom Enterprises, 255 Mich App 524, 532-533; 660 NW2d 384 (2003) (referencing statutory
sections using the mandatory term “must”).
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.