PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD M ISH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 29, 2002
APPROVED FOR
PUBLICATION
July 5, 2002
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 228534
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-011983
RICHARD M. ISH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
September 13, 2002
Before: Hood, P.J., and Gage and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction of first-degree home invasion,
MCL 750.110a(2)(b). We affirm.
Defendant argues that the statement he made to the police that he was "looking for food"
was inadmissible under both the corpus delicti rule and Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct
1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). Because defendant failed to preserve these issues for appeal, both
issues are reviewed for plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. People v Carines, 460
Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Defendant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense
before defendant's incriminating statement was admitted into evidence. Specifically, defendant
contends that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements of felonious intent
independent of his statement and that his statement therefore was improperly admitted. We
disagree.
The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to prevent the use of a defendant's confession to
convict him of a crime that did not occur. People v Konrad, 449 Mich 263, 269; 536 NW2d 517
(1995). The rule bars the prosecution from using a defendant's confession in any criminal case
unless it presents direct or circumstantial evidence independent of the defendant's confession that
the specific injury or loss occurred and that some criminal agency was the source or cause of the
injury. Id. at 269-270; People v Hayden, 205 Mich App 412, 413; 522 NW2d 336 (1994);
-1-
People v Cotton, 191 Mich App 377, 389; 478 NW2d 681 (1991). Once this showing has been
made, "[a] defendant's confession then may be used to elevate the crime to one of a higher
degree or to establish aggravating circumstances." Id. Thus, and contrary to defendant's
argument, it is not necessary that the prosecution present independent evidence of every element
of the offense before a defendant's confession may be admitted. People v Williams, 422 Mich
381, 391; 373 NW2d 567 (1985). We find that such an interpretation loses sight of the purpose
of the rule and "would require that the entire crime be proved before a confession could ever be
admitted." Konrad, supra at 270.1
Here, the testimony of the complainant and Dearborn Heights Police Officer Leonard
Stewart was sufficient to establish that an injury occurred and that some criminal element was
involved. MCL 750.110a(2); Konrad, supra at 269-270. The complainant and Officer Stewart
found defendant in complainant's family room watching television. Officer Stewart observed
that a window screen had been ripped out and the window behind it was open. Once this
evidence was presented, defendant's statement was properly admitted to establish defendant's
intent and to elevate the crime to a higher degree. Cotton, supra at 389, 394. Therefore, no error
occurred in the admission of defendant's statement as proof of the necessary intent for the crime
of first-degree home invasion.
With respect to defendant's claim of a Miranda violation, an officer's obligation to give
Miranda warnings to an accused attaches only when the person is subject to custodial
interrogation. People v Peerenboom, 224 Mich App 195, 198; 568 NW2d 153 (1997).
Moreover, a police officer may ask general on-the-scene questions to investigate the facts
surrounding the crime without implicating the holding in Miranda. People v Hill, 429 Mich 382,
398; 415 NW2d 193 (1987), quoting Miranda, supra at 477-478; People v Dunlap, 82 Mich App
171, 175; 266 NW2d 637 (1978). We believe that to be the case here. Defendant's statements
were in response to the officer's brief on-the-scene questioning to investigate the reason for
defendant's presence in the complainant's living room. The police officer reacted naturally and
spontaneously to the scene before him. More importantly, defendant was not under arrest or in a
police-dominated, coercive atmosphere as intended by Miranda. Id. Defendant's statement was
therefore not admitted in violation of Miranda and no error occurred.
Defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his
trial counsel failed to object to the admission of defendant's statement on the basis of a violation
of the corpus delicti rule and Miranda. This claim is without merit. Because there was no error
in admitting defendant's statement, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge
the admission of the statement, because defense counsel is not required to make motions that
have no merit. People v Darden, 230 Mich App 597, 605; 585 NW2d 27 (1998).
1
Defendant's reliance on People v Mumford, 171 Mich App 514; 430 NW2d 770 (1988), and
People v Uhl, 169 Mich App 217; 425 NW2d 519 (1988), for the proposition that the prosecution
must submit evidence on all the elements of the crime before admitting into evidence the
defendant's statement, is misplaced. Neither of these cases even mentions the Supreme Court's
holding in Williams, supra, which, as noted, holds just the opposite. See also, Konrad, supra at
270; Cotton, supra at 390.
-2-
Likewise, defendant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his
motion for a new trial is also without merit. A trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Torres, 452 Mich 43, 50; 549 NW2d 540 (1996).
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because there was no error in
admitting defendant's statement.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.