Court Opinion

ID: 9711422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:31:28.894236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.784390
License: Public Domain

*470Reilly, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. With respect to the issue of the jury trial waiver, I agree that the trial court did not make a finding on the record that defendant voluntarily waived his right to a jury in open court, even though defendant acknowledged that he signed a written waiver which indicated that his consent was voluntary. However, the fact that the court failed to make an inquiry as to the voluntary nature of the waiver does not compel the conclusion that the consent was given involuntarily. I would not reverse, but would remand for a determination by the trial judge as to whether the waiver by defendant was voluntary.
I agree that the identification line-up was not impermissibly suggestive and was properly admitted as evidence.
Finally, I disagree with the majority that the trial judge abused his discretion by granting an adjournment on Friday to allow the prosecutor an opportunity over the weekend to attempt to find the missing complaining witness. That decision was not so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences perversity of will, or passion or bias. People v Pullins, 145 Mich App 414, 417-418; 378 NW2d 502 (1985); Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382, 384-385; 94 NW2d 810 (1959). I agree with the trial court that the prosecutor’s efforts to find the complaining witness were extensive and made in good faith, albeit after the trial was in progress. However, the lateness of the inquiry should not negate the prosecutor’s efforts, as it is apparent that even if the investigation into the witness’ whereabouts had begun several weeks before trial, it would have been unsuccessful, as the last person who is known to have seen defendant was his sister, and she had not seen him in *471the three months before trial. I believe the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the use of the preliminary examination testimony of the complaining witness at trial. Pullins, supra at 418-419; Spalding, supra.