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, FOR PUBLICATION March 31, 2022 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9:00 a.m. v No. 357538 Charlevoix Circuit Court CHRISTOPHER MILAN KROLL, LC No. 19-022813-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: REDFORD, P.J., and SAWYER and MURRAY, JJ. MURRAY, J. In this interlocutory1 appeal, the primary issue concerns the admissibility of defendant’s videotaped statement made during an interview arising from defendant’s report of a sexual assault pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 34 USC 30301 et seq., with the answer to that question resolving whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of making a false report of a felony, MCL 750.411a(1)(b). We hold that the statement was admissible, that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, and therefore affirm. I. BACKGROUND In July 2019 defendant was a prisoner in a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facility, serving sentences for first-degree retail fraud and possession of methamphetamine. MDOC transferred defendant on a writ to the Charlevoix County jail on July 23, 2019, for proceedings related to pending criminal charges. After court proceedings on July 23, defendant was placed into a temporary holding cell, and the next morning he was put into a cell with nine other inmates. 1 People v Kroll, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered October 11, 2021 (Dkt No. 357538). -1- On the morning of July 24, 2019, the jail administrator went to the detective’s office in the sheriff’s department and advised Detective Cody Wheat that there was a PREA complaint about a sexual assault in the jail. Detective Wheat, who was unfamiliar with PREA, treated the investigation as a normal sexual assault complaint, and arranged to interview defendant that same morning. The interview was recorded by Detective Wheat’s body camera.2 Because defendant was incarcerated, at the start of the interview Detective Wheat read defendant his Miranda warnings3 and, after defendant indicated that he understood his rights, Detective Wheat asked defendant whether he agreed to speak with him. Defendant never expressly agreed to waive his constitutional rights to remain silent or wait for an attorney, but he continued to talk to Detective Wheat, essentially without Detective Wheat asking any questions pertaining to what occurred in his jail cell.4 Defendant continued his colloquy with Detective Wheat, setting forth his general concerns about jail safety and harassment. After detective Wheat informed defendant that he was there in response to his PREA complaint, the following exchange occurred: A. Okay. That’s what I’m explaining to you. Q. Yep. And then—but at the same time, I mean, if you don’t want to speak to me, you know,— A. I think I just did. Q. Right. But at the same time, like, I need—I’m here to try to help you,— A. Yeah. Q. —okay. That’s why I’m here. I’m not here to cover stuff …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals