Court Opinion

ID: 9730805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:24:24.307389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:09.440955
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority.
The district judge was entitled to rely on the decision of this Court in People v Carmichael.1 However, I do not agree with all that was said in Carmichael.
A county prosecutor has a wide, although not unlimited, discretion in choosing a statute under which to charge a suspected offender. People v Evans2 deals with this issue in greater detail and is in conflict with Carmichael. Until the Supreme Court resolves these conflicting viewpoints, a lower court enjoys an option to follow whichever view is found more persuasive.
Ordinarily, where a prosecutor seeks to appeal from an adverse finding on his motion to bind over, the proper remedy is appeal. See, People v McCoy3 However, where, as here, a district judge *551interprets a statute in several pending cases in a way that a prosecutor believes is erroneous, I would permit use of the extraordinary remedy of superintending control.
Except in these respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

 86 Mich App 418; 272 NW2d 667 (1978).

 94 Mich App 4; 287 NW2d 608 (1979).

 75 Mich App 164; 254 NW2d 829 (1977).