If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED November 17, 2022 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 359167 Eaton Circuit Court MAHER MOHAMMAD GHUNAIM, LC No. 21-020223-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and LETICA and RICK, JJ. RICK, J. (dissenting). I would reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress statements that he made to the police while hospitalized because defendant was subject to a custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda1 rights and the prosecution failed to establish that his statements were voluntary. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. I. BACKGROUND This appeal arises from a recorded video interview between defendant, an immigrant from Jordan, and Detective Heather Stefan. At the time of the interview, defendant was hospitalized as a result of a suicide attempt.2 Defendant was connected to an intravenous line (IV) and medical apparatus and confined to a hospital bed. Detective Stefan and LeeAnn Kinsey, an employee of Children’s Protective Services, privately spoke with defendant in his hospital room after asking a “suicide watcher” to leave defendant’s room. 1 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444-445; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 2 The majority refers to defendant’s hospitalization as an “alleged suicide attempt.” The prosecution never disputed that defendant was hospitalized as a result of a suicide attempt below and the record makes clear that at the time of the interview, defendant was under “suicide watch.” Moreover, Detective Stefan testified that she was aware of defendant’s history of attempted suicide and mental health issues. -1- The entire interaction was approximately one hour. Detective Stefan closed the hospital room door. She spoke with defendant for approximately 40 minutes, during which time defendant made incriminating statements. During the interview, defendant repeatedly sobbed and expressed suicidal ideations. Detective Stefan and Kinsey repeatedly told defendant that they were there to help him, but that they could not help him unless he told them what happened. Ultimately, defendant made incriminating statements favorable to the prosecution. Defendant subsequently filed a motion in the district court to suppress his statements. The district court granted the motion after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was nonetheless bound over to the circuit court after his preliminary examination. Defendant again filed a motion to suppress in the circuit court, which the circuit court denied. This appeal followed. II. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION Defendant argues that evidence pertaining to his hospital interview with the police was inadmissible because he was interrogated while in police custody without having been read his Miranda rights. It is undisputed that defendant was interrogated. The majority concludes that defendant was not subjected to a custodial interrogation. I disagree. “The ultimate question whether a person was ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals