Sufficient evidence for a first-degree child abuse conviction; MCL 750.136b(2); Admission of defendant’s police statements; Whether defendant was in custody; People v. Barritt; Lack of Miranda warnings; Remedy

While the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Locke-Hughes’ first-degree child abuse conviction, it held that he was entitled to a new trial on all charges because the trial court erred in admitting statements he made in a “custodial interrogation performed without the benefit of Miranda warnings.” It determined that, viewed “in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented at trial through” defendant’s 4/6 interview video indicated that he “knowingly and intentionally held” the child “down in the bathtub.” But the court ruled that the interview should not have been admitted. There was no question that he “was not advised of his Miranda rights during” it. Considering the Barritt factors, he “was questioned at the police station” and the interview lasted 1 hour and 11 minutes. He was not told during the interview “that he was free to leave. Locke-Hughes began to make some incriminating statements about twenty-five minutes into the interview and the officers continued questioning him for nearly an hour.” They were armed during the “interview, the door to the room was shut, and the officers were sitting between Locke-Hughes and the door, with their backs to the door.” Finally, the fact that he was released weighed against custody. “Based on the totality of the circumstances,” the court held that a reasonable person in his “position would not have felt free to terminate the interview and leave.” As to the next step in the analysis, it concluded that his “interview took place in a coercive environment.” It found that the effect of the statements made by the officers “was coercive, particularly for a 20-year-old person with no prior criminal charges.” Further, it could not say that his decision to go “to the station was entirely voluntary.” Thus, it held that a reasonable person in his “position would not have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave, and the environment presented the same coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning in Miranda. Therefore, Locke-Hughes was ‘in custody,’ and his Fifth Amendment rights were violated” by the lack of Miranda warnings. Further, the error was not harmless because the court could not “say that reasonable jurors would have found [him] guilty of first-degree child abuse” without the interview video.