Defendant
Mantrease Datrell Smart was charged with multiple crimes in connection with the
robbery and shooting death of Megan Kreuzer on May 31, 2010. Smart supplied a
gun to two other men who planned the robbery. Smart also witnessed the robbery,
during which one of the other men shot and killed Kreuzer.
Before
trial, Smart asked the trial court to suppress statements that he had made
about the Kreuzer murder during two meetings with police. The meetings
concerned an unrelated carjacking incident, but Smart offered information about
the Kreuzer murder in an effort to obtain a favorable plea deal. At the first
meeting, the police officer agreed that the information Smart provided would
not be used against him; no such promise was made at the second meeting. The
trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and then ruled that both
statements were inadmissible. The prosecution appealed suppression of the
statement made at the second meeting.
In
a split published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and
ruled that Smart’s second statement was inadmissible under Michigan Rule of
Evidence (MRE) 410(4), which excludes from evidence statements made by a
defendant “in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the
prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty . . . .”
The prosecution appeals. In an
order dated September 17, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the application for
leave to appeal. The Court directed the parties to address whether Smart’s
statement to the police should be suppressed under MRE 410. In briefing this
issue, the parties were directed to address whether, pursuant to MRE 410, “plea
discussions” must directly involve a prosecuting attorney or whether a
prosecuting attorney’s agent may act on behalf of the prosecuting authority
and, if so, under what circumstances the agent’s discussions constitute “plea
discussions.” The parties were also directed to address whether the Supreme
Court’s analysis for determining if a statement was made “in connection with” a
plea offer, established in People v Dunn, should continue to guide the
application of MRE 410, and if not, what test should be applied in its stead.