Background
Michael Jerome Davis was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and two counts of felony-firearm after a shooting in his Pontiac home killed Franklin Delano Fleming, Jr., and wounded Denise Johnson. Johnson testified at the preliminary examination that Davis accused her and Fleming of plotting to rob him, ordered her into a bathroom, and shot toward her head when she refused to get into the bathtub. Fleming was later found near the front door with a fatal gunshot wound to the back of his head.
Police arrested Davis in Ohio 10 days later. After receiving and acknowledging his Miranda rights, Davis told officers that he believed Johnson and Fleming planned to rob and kill him. During the interview, he said, “I think this might be a good place to stop, though,” but continued speaking after officers said stopping was his right and asked for his account. Davis moved to suppress the statements and separately argued on appeal that the prosecution had not proved premeditation and deliberation.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Davis did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent. His phrasing—particularly “I think” and “might”—was tentative and could reasonably be understood as considering whether to stop rather than clearly directing officers to end the interview. Because an ambiguous or equivocal reference to remaining silent does not require police to cease questioning, the trial court properly denied suppression.
The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the first-degree premeditated-murder conviction. The jury could infer planning from Davis’s belief that the victims were conspiring against him, his efforts to isolate Johnson while awaiting Fleming’s arrival or departure, and his shooting of Fleming from behind as Fleming apparently prepared to leave. Davis’s subsequent flight to Ohio and disposal of the firearm further supported an inference of consciousness of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- A suspect who has waived Miranda rights must clearly and unambiguously reassert the right to remain silent to require police to stop questioning.
- The statement “I think this might be a good place to stop, though” was too tentative to constitute an unequivocal invocation.
- Premeditation and deliberation may be proved circumstantially through conduct before the killing, the manner of the shooting, and conduct afterward.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates Michigan’s application of the unequivocal-invocation rule: language expressing uncertainty about whether an interview should end may permit questioning to continue. It also shows how a combination of planning evidence, a shot to the back of the victim’s head, flight, and disposal of the weapon can sustain a premeditated-murder conviction without direct evidence of the defendant’s state of mind.