Case Name: PEOPLE v. DOMIN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-09-27
Citations: 71 Mich. App. 315
Docket Number: Docket No. 24261
Parties: PEOPLE v DOMIN
Judges: Before: T. M. Burns, P. J., and R. B. Burns and V. J. Brennan, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 71
Pages: 315–318

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v DOMIN
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Preliminary Examination — Hearsay Evidence— Inadmissible Evidence — Objections.
A defendant’s conviction for possession or delivery of LSD should be reversed where (1) the only evidence presented at the preliminary examination to show that the substance in defendant’s possession was LSD was hearsay and not admissible and (2) the defendant objected to the evidence on that basis.
Dissent by V. J. Brennan, J.
2. Criminal Law — Preliminary Examination — Rules of Evidence —Strict Application.
Strict application of the rules of evidence at a preliminary examination would defeat the purpose of the proceeding, which represents an investigation requiring the fullest possible inquiry.
3. Criminal Law — Preliminary Examination — Incompetent Evidence — Indictment and Information.
The commission of a crime should not be established at a preliminary examination by incompetent evidence alone; however, an information will not be quashed due to the admission of incompetent evidence at a preliminary examination where sufficient competent evidence exists to establish the commission of the offense by the defendant.
Appeal from Gogebic, Donald L. Munro, J.
Submitted May 10, 1976, at Marquette.
(Docket No. 24261.)
Decided September 27, 1976.
Bartley Domin was convicted of delivery, or possession with intent to deliver, of LSD. Defendant appeals.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1-3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 440-451.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Anders B. Tingstad, Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service, Keith D. Roberts, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel) for the people.
Wisti & Jaaskelainen (by Phillip L. Kukkonen), for defendant.
Before: T. M. Burns, P. J., and R. B. Burns and V. J. Brennan, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, J.
Defendant was convicted of delivery, or possession with intent to deliver, of LSD in violation of MCLA 335.341(1)(b); MSA 18.1070(41)(1)(b). He appeals and we reverse.
The only evidence, at the preliminary exam, which tended to prove that the pills in the possession of the defendant were LSD was a laboratory analysis by the State Police. The person who prepared the report was not present and the report was submitted by the sheriff.
The defendant objected on the basis that the report was hearsay and not admissible. We agree. The report was hearsay and not admissible.
In People v Asta, 337 Mich 590, 612; 60 NW2d 472, 483 (1953), the Supreme Court said:
"On the preliminary examination, however, the defendants were, under the statute, entitled to have the witnesses examined in their presence. CL 1948, § 766.4 (Stat Ann § 28.922). In view of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, the fact that the crime charged had been committed could not be established by hearsay testimony."
Reversed and remanded.
T. M. Burns, P. J., concurred.