Case Name: PEOPLE v. HORACE WILLIAMS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-08-22
Citations: 77 Mich. App. 402
Docket Number: Docket No. 24440
Parties: PEOPLE v HORACE WILLIAMS
Judges: Before: D. E. Holbrook P. J., and Bashara and R. E. A. Boyle, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 77
Pages: 402–410

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v HORACE WILLIAMS
Opinion op the Court
1. Appeal and Error — Witnesses—Criminal Law — Indorsement op Witnesses — Production of Witnesses — New Trial.
A defendant’s failure to enter a motion in the trial court for the indorsement and production of alleged res gestae witnesses where the existence and identity of the witnesses was known to the defendant at the time of trial and the subsequent failure of the defendant to move for a new trial on the issue of the nonproduction of alleged res gestae witnesses precludes the defendant from raising on appeal the issue of the prosecution’s failure to indorse and produce the witnesses.
Dissent by Bashara, J.
2. Appeal and Error — Witnesses—Criminal Law — Res Gestae Witnesses — Indorsement op Witnesses — Production of Witnesses — New Trial — Case Precedent.
As a general rule appellate review of the issue of the prosecution’s failure to indorse and produce alleged res gestae witnesses is precluded where the defendant fails to object in the trial court to the nonindorsement and nonproduction of the witnesses and the defendant also fails to move for a new trial based upon a failure to produce res gestae witnesses; however, a defendant who after ñling a claim of appeal desires to raise the issue of the nonproduction of res gestae witnesses, which was not raised in the trial court, should not be precluded from bringing a motion in the trial court for a new trial where that motion is made prior to the time that his brief on appeal is Hied.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 180.
58 Am Jur 2d, New Trial §§ 40, 41.
[2, 4, 5] 58 Am Jur 2d, New Trial §§ 40, 41.
[3] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts §§ 98, 99.
[6, 7] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 303.
3. Courts — Jurisdiction—Court of Appeals — Claim of Appeal— Court Rules.
Jurisdiction vests in the Court of Appeals upon the ñling of a claim of appeal with the Court of Appeals (GCR 1963, 802.1).
' 4. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Witnesses—New Trial — Indorsement of Witnesses — Prosecution of Witnesses — Hearing.
A defendant desiring reversal of conviction or a new trial because of a failure to produce an unindorsed or an indorsed witness shall, before ñling his brief on appeal, move the trial court for a new trial; the prosecutor shall produce or explain why he cannot produce the witness or, as the case may be, why he did not indorse and produce him at the trial; if the witness is produced at the hearing, he shall be examined regarding his knowledge of the crime and, if a new trial be denied, the judge shall state his reasons.
5. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Res Gestae Witnesses — Indorsement of Witnesses — Production of Witnesses — -Exceptions.
Exceptions to the requirement that res gestae witnesses be indorsed and produced include: (1) where the prosecution has made a showing of due diligence in attempting to produce the witness, (2) where the testimony of the witness would be merely cumulative, and (3) where the witness was a participant in the crime.
6. Criminal Law — Presentence Report — Contents—Judges—Discretion — Prejudice—Evidentiary Hearing — Court Rules.
A trial judge is granted the discretion by court rule to consider and weigh the contents of the presentence report, both objective and subjective, and to choose the means of ascertaining, when an objection is raised, that the defendant is not prejudiced in sentencing by false information; he is not compelled to hold an evidentiary hearing, but, in the exercise of his discretion, he may do so (GCR 1963, 785.12).
7. Appeal and Error — Presentence Report — Judges—Discretion— Failure to to Exercise — False Information — Prejudice.
Failure of a trial judge to respond to a defense claim that the presentence report contains false information constitutes abdication of his discretion; failure to exercise discretion to ascertain that the defendant is not prejudiced by false information is error requiring resentencing.
Appeal from Berrien, William S. White, J.
Submitted April 13, 1977, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 24440.)
Decided August 22, 1977.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Horace L. Williams was convicted of five counts of larceny by conversion. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed, but remanded for resentencing.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, John Smietanka, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sally M. Zack, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
John A. Lydick, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant.
Before: D. E. Holbrook P. J., and Bashara and R. E. A. Boyle, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
D. E. Holbrook, P. J.
We concur in the factual findings contained in the dissenting opinion. However we find no "dilemma" with respect to raising the issue of production of res gestae witnesses. Appellate counsel was appointed on April 9, 1975, and had 60 days in which to either file a motion for new trial on the res gestae witness issue or file a claim of appeal, GCR 1963, 803.1. Claim of appeal was filed on June 9, 1975. Neither defendant nor the dissent cite any reason as to why a motion for new trial could not have been filed within that time. Defendant did finally file a motion for remand on September 26, 1975, however, this motion was too late to preserve the issue. People v Robinson, 390 Mich 629; 213 NW2d 106 (1973).
Furthermore, we are convinced that another reason bars appellate review. Defendant could, and should, have raised this issue at trial. Defendant contends that all of the people who attended the fashion show were res gestae witnesses. We agree with the dissent that resolution of this issue is not ripe for appellate review. However, defendant knew who these people were and failed to move for their production. Defendant selectively produced several of these people as defense witnesses. Defendant did not move for the indorsement of any additional witnesses. It appears that defendant had lists of people who had purchased tickets, modeled in the show and engaged in various activities connected with the show. Failure to move for indorsement and production of these known witnesses should bar the claim on appeal. People v Bennett, 68 Mich App 446; 243 NW2d 15 (1976), People v Howell, 396 Mich 16; 238 NW2d 148 (1976). The defendant should have moved for their production and we cannot help but conclude that failure to so move was a matter of trial strategy. In addition, the dissent allows defendant to raise his own error on appeal. Defendant has gambled and lost. At trial selective production by the defense of several of these witnesses did not result in a favorable verdict for defendant. Now, defendant desires to try the other alternative, production of everyone connected with the show. Defendant's failure to properly pursue this issue especially when it does not appear likely that these people were in fact res gestae witnesses should preclude appellate review of this issue.
Defendant's failure to move at trial for production of these witnesses and his later failure to move for a new trial precludes him from raising this issue.
We remand for resentencing as explained in the dissenting opinion. People v McIntosh, 62 Mich App 422; 234 NW2d 157 (1975).
Affirmed, except for remand for resentencing.
R. E. A. Boyle, J., concurred.