Case Name: PEOPLE v. CUYLER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-02-23
Citations: 38 Mich. App. 490
Docket Number: Docket No. 10685
Parties: PEOPLE v CUYLER
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Levin and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 38
Pages: 490–496

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v CUYLER
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Witnesses—Nonproduction—Due Diligence.
Defendant’s objection on appeal to the use of testimony from a preliminary examination transcript was without merit where the record shows that the prosecution exercised due diligence in trying to obtain trial attendance of the missing witness, the witness was discovered on the evening of the trial, the prosecutor offered the defense the opportunity to cross-examine, and the defense declined.
Dissent by Levin, J.
2. Criminal Law — -Witnesses—Nonproduction—Due Diligence.
A prosecutor did not use due diligence to produce a witness for trial where a month before trial the police had learned the witness was in Indiana, four days before the trial the police learned from the Indiana police that the witness might be returning to his home in Michigan and learned from the witness’s father that the father had seen the witness’s wife around town within the past month, and nothing further was done to locate the witness, because the people should have followed through on the leads that the witness had returned to his home in Michigan.
3. Criminal Law — Witnesses—Nonproduction—Due Diligence— Reopening Proops.
The trial judge’s error in finding that the prosecutor had used due diligence in trying to locate an important prosecution witness was not cured by the prosecutor’s offering to reopen proofs to allow defendant to cross-examine the witness, who had since been found, because defendant would have had to choose between waiving his right to be the last to produce evidence heard by the jury before it began deliberation.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 343.
Federal constitutional right to confront witnesses, Supreme Court Cases. 23 L Ed 2d 853.
[2, 3] 58 Am Jur 2d, New Trial § 40.
Appeal from Calhoun, Creighton R. Coleman, J.
Submitted Division 3 November 2, 1971, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 10685.)
Decided February 23, 1972.
Leave to appeal denied, 387 Mich 793.
Richard S. Cuyler was convicted of assault with intent to rape. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, John M. Jereck, Acting Prosecuting Attorney, and Noel G. Petersen, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Edward J. Hackett, for defendant on appeal.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Levin and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P. J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of assault with intent to rape. MCLA 750.85; MSA 28.280'.
Defendant's objection to the use of testimony from a preliminary examination transcript is without merit. The record shows an exercise of due diligence and a good faith effort by the prosecutorial authorities to obtain trial attendance of the missing witness. Barber v Page, 390 US 719; 88 S Ct 1318; 20 L Ed 2d 255 (1968); People v Nieto, 33 Mich App 535 (1971).
In fact, the missing witness was discovered the evening of the trial. Although proofs had been closed neither side had presented their final arguments to the jury when the prosecutor informed de fense counsel that the missing witness was in the courtroom and offered the defense, the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The offer was denied.
Affirmed.
T. M. Burns, J., concurred.