|
No. 133725
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Jeffrey Caminsky |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Brookover, T.) |
|
|
| Richard Perry Bryant, |
|
Peter Jon Van Hoek |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Background
Five police officers found Anthony Covington lying on the ground next to his car at a gas station a few blocks from his home; he had been shot in the abdomen and was in considerable pain. Being questioned by each officer, Covington told them, “Rick shot me,” and described where the shooting occurred. Although Covington had not seen the person who shot him, he said that he knew “Rick” was the shooter because he recognized the shooter’s voice. When EMS arrived, the officers stopped questioning Covington; he died after being transported to the hospital. Police officers went to Richard Bryant’s home, where they discovered two bullet holes in the back door; on the back porch, they found blood, a bullet, and Covington’s eyeglasses. Covington’s wallet and military ID were also found nearby. Bryant was arrested and charged with Covington’s murder. At trial, Covington’s statements to the police were admitted into evidence. A jury convicted Bryant of second-degree murder, felony-firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, Bryant claimed that Covington’s statements to the police were testimonial in nature; therefore, Bryant claimed, their admission into evidence at trial violated his constitutional rights under the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution. The confrontation clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross examination.” Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004). In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected Bryant’s confrontation clause argument, and affirmed his convictions. The appellate court concluded that “Covington’s statements were made in the course of a police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that its primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” Relying on the authority of Davis v Washington, 547 US 813; 126 S Ct 2266; 165 L Ed 2d 224 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that the statements made by Covington were not testimonial and not subject to the confrontation clause. Bryant appeals.
Top of Page
|
