addressing the voluntariness of a confession
How later courts described this case
- addressing the voluntariness of a confession
- "[a] trial judge does not err when he fails to ask specific questions requested by a defendant but does cover the area in another manner"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
G. R. Corsiglia, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority opinion vacating our original decision in People v Prast, 105 Mich App 744 ; 307 NW2d 719 (1981). The reasons for my dissent are set forth in the original majority opinion, which is incorporated by reference herein.
In addition, I would emphasize that the venue issue presented by this case was a close and difficult question. As stated by Chief Judge Danhof in his original concurring opinion, "it is unfortunate that defendant should obtain a retrial when the evidence against him was overwhelming * * *”. *494 However, 57 percent of the jury panel was excused for cause in this case. Change of venue was the appropriate and relatively simple remedy to avoid a potentially biased and tainted jury. In view of the circumstances present at the time of trial, the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing the defendant’s request for a change of venue.