Admission of defendant’s police statements; “Custody”; Voluntariness; People v Cipriano; Prosecutorial misconduct; Closing argument; Sentencing; Review of a within-guidelines sentence; Reasonableness & proportionality

The court held that defendant’s police interview statements were properly admitted, that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments, and that her within-guidelines sentence was reasonable and proportionate. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for her child’s death, and meth possession. Her guidelines range was 50 to 150 months. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of 150 to 360 months for manslaughter and 34 to 240 months for meth possession. As to her statements, the court found that she “was not in custody. In fact, defendant was not in restraints and was in the front passenger seat of the police vehicle. The vehicle was unmarked, and there was no indication in the record that she was unable to stop the questioning and leave the vehicle. Although it was later disputed, at the time the trial court denied her motion” to suppress, the officer had clearly testified at the preliminary exam that he told her “she was free to leave at any time.” Considering the Cipriano factors, the court also found that she “failed to show how her statements were involuntary[.]” It noted that the initial interview occurred “only a few hours after discovering the death of her toddler son. Such an event would likely be traumatic for any parent.” But the interview transcript did not suggest that her “intellect or will was overwhelmed during that conversation.” Further, even assuming that those “statements were erroneously admitted, such error was harmless given defendant’s subsequent interviews and the other evidence against” her. She “repeated most, if not all, of her initial statements during” those interviews, and did not contest the admission of those interviews. The court also found “nothing improper with the prosecutor’s closing argument.” Finally, she failed to meet “her burden that her within-guidelines sentence was not proportionate given the evidence, the trial court’s reasoning, and her” appellate arguments. The “trial court considered the offense—the death of a one-year old by fentanyl—and the offender—a defendant who was found with drugs shortly after her son’s death—when sentencing” her. She simply did not show “how such reasoning and application resulted in a disproportionate sentence.”