Criminal – Self-incrimination – LSD

Where a defendant moved to suppress statements he made at a hospital, a judge’s decision to deny that motion should be upheld despite the defendant’s argument that his statements were not knowing and voluntary made because he was still under the influence of LSD when he made the statements.

“Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial, conviction of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct (CSC) involving penetration, MCL 750.520g(1). The court sentenced him to three years’ probation, with six months to be served in jail. We affirm.

“Defendant’s conviction arises from his attempted sexual assault of AC after he used LSD.

“Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements at the hospital. Defendant argues that the statements should have been suppressed because he was still under the influence of LSD when he made the statements, which, along with other factors, prevented the statements from being knowingly and voluntarily made. We disagree.

“Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s hospital statements were admitted in violation of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination, any such error in their admission was harmless.

“Next, defendant argues that MCL 768.37(1), which provides that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime, is unconstitutional because it violates his due-process right to present a defense. We disagree.”

Dissenting judge’s comments

GARRETT, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). “‘Intoxication from alcohol or other substances can affect the validity of a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights,’ People v Tierney , 266 Mich App 687, 707; 703 NW2d 204 (2005), and should be assessed by any officer before interrogating a suspect. In this case, a sheriff’s deputy interrogated defendant, Zebadiah Joseph Soriano, in a hospital emergency room while Soriano was strapped to a restraint chair. The intoxicating effects of the lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) Soriano had taken were weakening, but he was still so under the influence that he could not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his rights. I would hold that the trial court erred in denying Soriano’s motion to suppress his statements at the hospital. That error was not harmless, in my opinion, and remand is required for a new trial without the subject evidence. Accordingly, I must dissent from the majority opinion in this regard.”

People v. Soriano; MiLW 08-108056, 23 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Swartzle, J., Servitto, J.; Garrett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; on appeal from Grand Traverse Circuit Court; Ali Wright for appellant; Grand Traverse County Prosecutor for appellee.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Click here to read the full text of the dissent

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.