Case Name: PEOPLE v. PAILLE #1
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-07-11
Citations: 383 Mich. 605
Docket Number: Calendar No. 15, Docket No. 52,260
Parties: PEOPLE v. PAILLE #1.
Judges: Kelly, T. M. Kavanagh, Adams and T. Gr. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with T. E. Brennan, C. J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 383
Pages: 605–610

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. PAILLE #1.
Opinion of the Court.
1. Courts — Recorder's Court — Review—Statutes.
The statute preventing review by one of,. Detroit Recorder’s Court judges of an order, judgment, sentence or act of another Recorder’s Court judge was not intended by the legislature to be inapplicable to a new function given to Recorder’s Court by an amendment of the Recorder’s Court act by the municipal courts of record.act (MCLA'§§ 725.1 et seq., 726.2).
2. Criminal Law — Recorder’s Court — Superintending Control— Remand to Magistrate.
Plaintiff’s motion in Detroit Recorder’s Court to remand the cause to an examining magistrate, should be remanded to Wayne circuit court under the Supreme Court’s superintending authority, to hear and rule on the motion.
Dissenting Opinion.
Dethmers and Black, JJ.
3. Courts — Recorder’s Court — Examining Magistrate — Reinstatement of Examination.
The presiding judge of Detroit Recorder’s Court may properly review the dismissal of charges in a criminal case hy another Recorder’s Court judge sitting as an examining magistrate and reinstate the preliminary examination, remand it to that magistrate, direct him, to receive testimony theretofore excluded by him and reconsider the order dismissing charges.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1-5] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts §§ 111-117.
i. Courts — Recorder’s Court — Decided Case — Review.
Statute prohibiting review by one of Detroit Recorder’s Court judges of an order, judgment, sentence or act of another Recorder’s Court judge is directed toward the situation in which one judge of that court has tried and decided a case (CL 1948, § 786.8).
5. Courts — Recorder's Court — Superintending Control — Remand to Magistrate.
Circuit courts by statute have a general superintending control over all inferior courts and tribunals including the power to remand to a magistrate for preliminary examination, and the same relationship exists between the presiding judge or trial judge of Recorder’s Court and the examining magistrate of that court (MCLA §§ 600.615, 767.48).
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 1, Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ., denying leave to appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Geraldine Bledsoe Ford, J.
Submitted January 16, 1970.
(Calendar No. 15, Docket No. 52,260.)
Decided July 11, 1970.
Robert Paille was charged with first-degree murder. Charges dismissed on preliminary examination. The prosecution’s motion to reinstate the preliminary examination was granted by the presiding judge of Recorder’s Court. Leave to appeal denied by the Court of Appeals. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded to Wayne circuit court.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Boesky & Lippit, P. C. (Robert J. Sandler, of counsel), for defendant.

Opinion:
T. E. Brennan, C. J.
I cannot agree that the amendment of the Recorder's Court act by PA 1919, No 369 (MCLA § 725.1 et seq. [Stat Ann 1962 Rev and 1970 Cum Supp § 27.3941 et seq.]) gave rise to a new function in Recorder's Court to which the pre-existing restriction on review by another judge (LA 1883, No 326, Ch XII, § 2, as amended by LA 1893, No 408 [CL 1948, § 726.2 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3552)]) could not have application.
It gave rise to a new function all right, but there is no reason to suppose that the legislature did not fully intend to vest that new function in a court whose judges were statutorily prohibited from reviewing each others decisions.
Whatever intra-court battles occasioned the adoption of the restriction upon intra-court review, the wisdom of preventing judges of equal station from overruling each other abides. And, the rationale applies especially to the split-level jurisdiction of Recorder's Court.
I would vote to reverse, and in the light of the delay already experienced in this criminal prosecution, I would, under our superintending authority, remand this cause to the circuit court for Wayne County to hear and rule upon the prosecutor's motion to remand to the magistrate.
Kelly, T. M. Kavanagh, Adams and T. Gr. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with T. E. Brennan, C. J.