PEOPLE OF MI V QUANRICO PELE O'NEAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 23, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 248639
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-010580-01
QUANRICO PELE O’NEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Kelly and H. Hood*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction for second-degree murder, MCL
750.317, for which he was sentenced to life in prison. We affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in determining that his statement to the
police was voluntary. “Voluntariness of a confession is a question of law for the trial court's
determination.” People v Johnson, 202 Mich App 281, 287; 508 NW2d 509 (1993). In
reviewing the trial court's determination of voluntariness, this Court examines the record and
reaches an independent determination on the issue. Id. at 287-288. But this Court defers to “the
trial court's superior ability to view the evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses and will not
disturb the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id. at 288. The factors
considered in determining voluntariness are: age of the accused; lack of education or intelligence
level; extent of his previous experience with police; repeated and prolonged nature of the
questioning; length of the detention before the statement was given; lack of advice of
constitutional rights; unnecessary delay in bringing him before a magistrate before he gave the
confession; whether he was injured, intoxicated, drugged, or in ill health; whether he was
deprived of food, sleep, or medical attention; whether he was physically abused; and whether he
was threatened with abuse. People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 334; 429 NW2d 781 (1988).
Based on the evidence presented at the Walker 1 hearing, it is evident that defendant was
of sufficient age and education to understand his rights, had at least four prior contacts with the
1
People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331, 338; 132 NW2d 87 (1965).
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
legal system, including having signed two prior rights forms, was detained for less than two
hours, was not deprived of food, water, or use of the restroom, was not promised leniency, and
was not under the influence of drugs. Despite defendant’s testimony that he was assaulted by a
police officer, defendant’s medical records and the style and substance of defendant’s testimony
support the trial court’s finding that the beating did not occur. According to this evidence and
giving deference to the trial court’s assessment of credibility, we conclude that the trial court did
not err in determining that defendant’s statement was voluntary.
Defendant also contends that the trial court violated his constitutional right to be present
at his trial by removing him from the courtroom. Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.
People v Beasly, 239 Mich App 548, 557; 609 NW2d 581 (2000). This Court reviews a trial
court’s decision to remove a defendant from the courtroom during his trial for an abuse of
discretion. See People v Reginald Harris, 80 Mich App 228, 230; 263 NW2d 40 (1977). A
defendant can lose his right to be present in the courtroom when he continues disruptive behavior
after being warned to refrain and the behavior is so disorderly and disrespectful that his trial
cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom. Illinois v Allen, 397 US 337, 338-343; 90 S Ct
1057; 25 L Ed 2d 353 (1970).
The trial court had ample reason to remove defendant from the courtroom. The trial
court’s statements on the record indicate that defendant made threats of physical violence. On
the first day of trial, defendant exclaimed before his newly selected jury that he was being
railroaded by his attorney and that he did not “do this.” The trial court warned defendant that if
he chose to be disruptive and disrespectful to the court on the following day, he would be
removed to a cell from which he would monitor the remainder of the trial. The following day,
defendant interrupted his mother’s testimony, turned over a table, knocked items off a table, and
approached the jury, ignoring the court officer’s orders to sit and not to move. Defendant’s
failure to obey the officer forced the officer to take him to the floor and handcuff him in view of
at least some of the jury. Defendant physically assaulted an officer when the handcuffs were
later removed. Defendant’s threats, his assaultive behavior, and his refusal to obey the trial
court’s orders demonstrate that defendant posed a threat to the safety of those present in the
courtroom. Defendant’s conduct was egregious and disruptive to the point where the trial court
was unable to carry on with the trial while defendant was in the courtroom.
When defendant was removed from the courtroom, the trial court took the appropriate
and necessary steps of providing a cell from which defendant could monitor the proceedings.
The trial court instructed the court officers to check every few minutes to make sure that the
wiring was working properly. The trial court also gave permission for defendant’s attorney, at
any time, to indicate his need to consult with defendant. Defendant also was given the option of
remaining in the courtroom, in shackles, to ensure the safety of the judge and jury, but defendant
chose to remain in the cell. The trial court renewed this offer at the beginning of trial on the
third day. Defendant again opted to remain in the wired cell. On this record, we conclude that
the trial court took every step necessary to preserve defendant’s right to participate in his trial.
When a defendant waives his right to be present by behaving in a disruptive and egregious
manner, there is no requirement that the trial court obtain a waiver on the record before the
defendant is removed from the courtroom. Allen, supra at 343.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial
made after defendant interrupted his mother’s testimony. A motion for mistrial should be
-2-
granted only for an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and impairs the
defendant’s ability to get a fair trial.” People v Lugo, 214 Mich App 699, 704; 542 NW2d 921
(1995). A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial where the
defendant created the disruption that formed the reason for the motion. People v Siler, 171 Mich
App 246, 256-257; 429 NW2d 865 (1988). “We will not condone or allow a defendant to
perpetrate chaos at his own trial and then obtain a mistrial on the basis of prejudice.” Id. at 256.
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Harold Hood
-3-
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.
