Court Opinion

ID: 9663835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:52:49.446419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:58.066063
License: Public Domain

Holbroo.k, J.
{concurring). The result called for by the decision of my Brother Judges appears to effect a proper result. Believing that it would be helpful to explain my interpretation of the law applicable, this concurring opinion is written.
It can be said without possibility of contradiction that a prosecuting attorney need not call all of the people’s witnesses in order to satisfy the requirements of a preliminary examination. The people in this case chose not to call Officer Jurkas. The defendant called the witness Jurkas and proceeded to question him concerning statements which he had taken from defendant and other witnesses. Defendant’s counsel, apparently in an endeavor to.impeach the witness, requested that the statements be supplied by the prosecution. The prosecuting attorney refused the request, on the ground that by previous agreement defendant was to be given access only to statements for the purpose of cross-examination, and that since the officer was called by the defendant, he could not subject his oiun witness to cross-examination.
Now it is true that OL 1948, § 768.22 (Stat Ann 1954 Bev § 28.1045) provides:
“The rules of evidence,in civil actions, in so far as the’same are applicable, shall govern in all criminal and quasi criminal proceedings except as otherwise provided by law.”
In civil actions a party may call an agent of the opposite party for the purpose of cross-examina-' *469tion j 1 however, we are governed in the case at hand by the specific, statutory provisions for the conduct of preliminary examinations. CL 1948, §766.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.930) reads as follows:
“After the testimony in support of the prosecution has been given, the witnesses for the prisoner, if he have any, shall Toe sworn, examined and cross-examined and he may be assisted by counsel in such examination and in the cross-examination of the witnesses in support of the prosecution.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Witness Jurkas having been called by the defendant as provided in the statute was the defendant’s witness and he could not subject his own witness to cross-examination.
Affirmed.

 Giacobazzi v. Fetzer (1967), 6 Mich App 308.