COA 369107 PEOPLE OF MI V JORDEN ALLEN SCHMITZER Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 1/15/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
January 15, 2026
10:06 AM
v No. 369107
Saginaw Circuit Court
JORDEN ALLEN SCHMITZER, LC No. 22-049720-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and KOROBKIN and BAZZI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions of felony murder,
MCL 750.316(1)(b); possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm),
MCL 750.227b; first-degree arson, MCL 750.72(1)(b); and unlawful imprisonment,
MCL 750.349b. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2021, defendant and other individuals not parties to this appeal devised a plan
to drug the victim, Scott Engelhardt, and steal his marijuana plants. When the plan failed,
defendant and another individual resorted to holding Scott at gunpoint in his home while the others
stole and loaded Scott’s belongings into a van. Before fleeing the scene in Scott’s car, defendant
shot Scott in the head. Defendant later returned to Scott’s house and set the house on fire in an
effort to conceal his crime. Scott, who was left for dead, actually died from a combination of the
gunshot wound, smoke inhalation, and thermal injuries. Police arrested and interviewed defendant
a few days later. Defendant confessed to killing Scott and setting the house on fire.
Before trial, defendant moved to suppress his confession, claiming it was involuntary
because the police interview was unduly long, the detectives who interviewed him used coercive
tactics, like deceit, to induce his confession, and defendant was under the influence of

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
methamphetamines during the interview. At the Walker1 hearing, one of the detectives testified
that defendant was interviewed for nearly two hours, during which time he was given a brief break.
The detective admitted lying to defendant during the interview and asserted that he had no reason
to believe defendant was under the influence of methamphetamines. The trial court denied
defendant’s motion to suppress. The jury convicted defendant as noted. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress but reviews
all underlying factual findings for clear error.” People v Stewart, 512 Mich 472, 480; 999 NW2d
717 (2023). “A finding is clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing
court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” Id. But “if
resolution of a disputed factual question turns on the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the
evidence, we will defer to the trial court, which had a superior opportunity to evaluate these
matters.” People v Sexton, 461 Mich 746, 752; 609 NW2d 822 (2000) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court should have
suppressed his involuntary confession made to police. We disagree.
“Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be
a witness against himself or herself.” People v Cortez, 299 Mich App 679, 691; 832 NW2d 1
(2013), citing US Const, Am V and Const 1963, art 1, § 17. A defendant’s statement during a
custodial interrogation is admissible only if the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
waived his or her right against self-incrimination. People v Barritt, 325 Mich App 556, 561-562;
926 NW2d 811 (2018). “The use of an involuntary statement elicited by coercive state action in a
criminal trial violates” this right. Stewart, 512 Mich at 480. “In other words, if an individual’s
will was overborne or if his confession was not the product of a rational intellect and free will, his
confession is inadmissible because it was coerced.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets, and citations
omitted).
To determine voluntariness, we must assess “whether the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the making of the confession indicates that it was freely and voluntarily made.” Id.
at 481 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Although “all relevant circumstances must be
considered,” id., particular attention is given to:
[T]he age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence level; the extent
of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the
questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement
in question; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights;
whether there was an unnecessary delay in bringing him before a magistrate before
he gave the confession; whether the accused was injured, intoxicated or drugged,
1 People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (1965).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
or in ill health when he gave the statement; whether the accused was deprived of
food, sleep, or medical attention; whether the accused was physically abused; and
whether the suspect was threatened with abuse. [Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted).]
The record belies defendant’s claim that his confession was involuntary.2 During the
Walker hearing, one of the detectives who interviewed defendant testified defendant was read his
Miranda rights and signed a document confirming that he understood these rights. Defendant
stated that he had his GED, was able to read and write, and denied being under the influence of
drugs or alcohol, claiming that he had been sober for two months. The detective, who was trained
to recognize signs of intoxication, did not observe any noticeable signs of intoxication or drug use,
nor any signs of cognitive impairments, disabilities, or withdrawal. The detective also believed
defendant provided thoughtful and logical responses to questions, was coherent, and did not appear
confused. Under the totality of the circumstances, it was not clearly erroneous for the trial court
to find that defendant’s confession was freely and voluntarily made.
Defendant claims that, despite his denial of being under the influence, the detectives had
reason to know he was. But the detective denied any such knowledge, and we defer to the trial
court’s determination regarding the credibility of his testimony. Sexton, 461 Mich at 752.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress and he is not
entitled to a new trial.
Affirmed.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi
2 Defendant’s only substantive challenge is whether he was “intoxicated or drugged . . . when he
gave the statement[.]” Defendant implies that his custodial interview was unduly long, but fails to
offer any meaningful argument or support for this contention. Thus, this issue is abandoned. See
People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 315; 721 NW2d 815 (2006). Additionally, defendant claims
that his statement was rendered involuntary because the detectives lied to him throughout the
interview. But a police officer’s misrepresentation during an interview does not render an
otherwise voluntary statement involuntary. People v Hicks, 185 Mich App 107, 112-113; 460
NW2d 569 (1990). The detectives denied making any promises or threats of harm during the
interview that may constitute coercive tactics. Accordingly, defendant’s argument that his
confession was involuntary because the detectives lied during his interview also lacks merit.

-- 3 of 3 --