158102 - People v Laricca Mathews
Attorney Information
|
The People of the State
of Michigan,
|
|
Matthew Fillmore
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of
Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Oakland – McMillen, P.)
|
|
|
Laricca Seminta Mathews,
|
|
Joseph Lavigne
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Defendant Laricca
Mathews is awaiting trial for open murder arising out of the fatal shooting of
her boyfriend, Gabriel Dumas. After shooting
Dumas in the head, defendant called 911, attended to his head wound as
instructed, and surrendered to the police when they arrived. She was arrested and taken to the police station,
where she was interviewed twice. At the
beginning of the interviews, she was advised in writing and orally that “before
any questions are asked of you, you should know, . . . you have the right to a
lawyer.” Defendant agreed to speak with
detectives and made statements that the prosecution wants to introduce at
trial. Defendant moved to suppress her
statements under Miranda v Arizona,
384 US 436 (1966), and the trial court granted her motion, ruling that the
warnings failed to advise defendant that she had the right to have an attorney
present before and during interrogation.
The Court of Appeals denied the prosecution’s application for interlocutory
review for lack of merit in the grounds presented, with one judge indicating
that she would grant leave to appeal. On
appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for
consideration as on leave granted to consider whether either of the bases for
suppression advanced by defendant in the trial court rendered the warnings in
this case deficient under Miranda. See People v Mathews, 501 Mich 950
(2018). On remand, in a published split
decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding “that a warning preceding a
custodial interrogation is deficient when the warning contains only a broad
reference to the ‘right to an attorney’ that does not, when the warning is read
in its entirety, reasonably convey the suspect’s right to consult with an
attorney and to have an attorney present during the interrogation.” People
v Mathews, 324 Mich App 416, 438 (2018).
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the prosecution’s application
for leave to appeal to address whether the warnings provided to the defendant
prior to custodial interrogation “reasonably convey[ed],” Florida v Powell, 559 US 50, 60 (2010), to her the “right to
consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with [her] during interrogation,” Miranda, 384 US at 471.