-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 6, 2016 

v No. 319998 

Wayne Circuit Court 

DARRIN CRAWFORD, LC No. 13-007629-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

ON REMAND 

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and SAWYER and MURPHY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 In our original opinion in this matter, we affirmed defendant’s convictions. People v 

Crawford, unpublished opinion per curiam, rel’d 10/13/2016. Thereafter, by order dated 

7/26/2016, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to us with instructions to give further 

consideration to defendant’s claim that the jury had not been sworn and to explain why we had 

failed to consider an amended transcript that reflected that the jury had, in fact, been sworn. 

 We addressed the second issue in an order dated 9/20/2016, which also remanded this 

matter to the trial court for a settlement of the record. That order provided as follows: 

 On remand from our Supreme Court, this Court is directed to “give further 

consideration of the defendant’s contention that the jury was not sworn” and 

provide “an explanation why it [this Court] failed to consider the amended 

transcript in concluding that no oath was administered.” 

 The amended transcript filed with this Court does not contain any 

amended pages that reflect that an oath was administered. The only source of 

those amended pages is the attachment to the prosecutor’s motion in the Supreme 

Court filed several months after this Court’s October 13, 2015 opinion was issued. 

According to that motion, the amended pages were actually attached to the end of 

a copy of the original transcript and it was labeled “amended transcript” and 

supplied to the parties. But, while the official record supplied to this Court and 

the Supreme Court does contain a full transcript labeled “Amended Transcript,” it 

does not contain those amended pages reflecting the jury being sworn, either in 

place of the original pages or appended to the end. Therefore, this Court could 
-2- 

not consider the amended pages in the amended transcript because it has never 

been supplied to us. We can only speculate why those pages were omitted from 

the official transcript filed with this Court; and therefore, we REMAND to the 

trial court for settlement of the record. 

 The trial court shall, within 14 days of the Clerk’s certification of this 

order, settle the transcript discrepancy in the official record that was provided to 

this Court by providing this Court with the location in the transcript or in the 

amended transcript where the oath was in fact given. If the trial court determines 

that the official record contains an incorrect amended transcript, the trial court 

shall order the court reporter to file a corrected transcript. If the trial court 

determines that the transcripts contained in the official record are correct, the trial 

court shall order that the record be recertified and forwarded to this Court for final 

resolution of this appeal. 

 We retain jurisdiction. This order has immediate effect. MCR

7.215(F)(2). 

 On remand, the trial court settled the record by finally providing this Court with the 

actual amended transcript, which reflects that the jury had, in fact, been sworn. In our original 

opinion we concluded that defendant’s convictions should be affirmed despite the fact the jury 

had not been sworn. While it has now been established in the record before us that the jury had 

actually been sworn, and while that would change the analysis of the issue, it does not change the 

conclusion that defendant’s convictions are to be affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ David H. Sawyer 

/s/ William B. Murphy