Court Opinion

ID: 9732786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:35:26.090508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:33.822598
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from my colleague’s opinion as to the inadequacy of the efforts of the people to produce the informer witness in the instant case.
In Judge Kelly’s opinion it is stated that "[h]ere, a reviewing court has had the opportunity to assess the adequacy of the prosecutorial attempts” (to produce the res gestae witness). That is not the appropriate test to be applied in determining whether there was a sufficient showing of "due diligence” on the part of the state to excuse its failure to produce the witness at trial. More accurately the question may be stated as being whether the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in determining that there had been due diligence to secure the presence of the res gestae witness. People v Russell, 27 Mich App 654; 183 NW2d 845 (1970), People v Garcia, 39 Mich App 45; 197 NW2d 287 (1972).
My examination of the record indicates that the police officer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the informer witness on more than one occasion and that he checked, inter alia, the witness’ residence and adjacent boathouse in addition to visiting the fire hall and several local business establishments. Admittedly, the record-supported search does not rise to the level of a full-scale manhunt. Nor, in my view, need the people make such an exhaustive search before the trial judge may, with *195good reason, make a permissible finding of due diligence.
In finality, I simply cannot say that the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in excusing the people from their burden of producing the res gestae witness under the circumstances herein.
I vote to affirm.