Case Name: PEOPLE v. SWIFT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-05-26
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 349
Docket Number: Docket No. 4,319
Parties: PEOPLE v. SWIFT
Judges: BEFORE: Lesinski, O. J., and Quinn and Danhof, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. SWIFT
Bobbery — Evidence—Witnesses—Bes Gestae Witnesses — Duty oe Prosecution to Cade.
Failure of prosecution to call as res gestae witnesses three people who arrived at a filling station shortly after an armed robbery occurred there held, not reversible error where the persons in question were not eyewitnesses to the crime, their identity was not known to the prosecution, and there was ample evidence that due diligence was exercised by the prosecution to ascertain the identity of the persons in question without success (MOLA § 750.529).
Beeerences for Points in Headnote
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 180 j 39 Am Jur, New Trial § 38.
Appeal from Genesee, Stewart A. Newblatt, J. Submitted Division 2 May 6, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 4,319.)
Decided May 26, 1969.
Dorrin E. Swift was convicted of robbery armed. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Dennis C. Karas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Allen J. Nelson, for defendant.
BEFORE: Lesinski, O. J., and Quinn and Danhof, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was found guilty of armed robbery at tbe conclusion of a jury trial and sentenced to from 7-1/2 to 15 years in prison.
Defendant has appealed alleging that tbe trial court committed error by refusing to require tbe prosecution to produce three persons who arrived at tbe scene of tbe crime within minutes of its commission.
A review of tbe record shows that tbe persons were not eyewitnesses to tbe crime, nor was their identity known to tbe prosecution. Tbe testimony of police officers on a separate record provided ample evidence that due diligence was exercised to ascertain tbe identity of tbe persons in question. No error bas been committed when it is shown that officers have made a diligent search for and have been unable to locate witnesses. People v. Castelli (1963), 370 Mich 147. The prosecution was under no obligation to produce unknown witnesses. People v. Todaro (1931), 253 Mich 367.
Tbe other questions raised on appeal do not merit discussion.
Affirmed.
MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.797).
MCLA § 767.40 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.980).