Court Opinion

ID: 9595625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:11.762523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:29.373059
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by Judge Holbrook.
I limit my concurrence to holding that the statement of a non-expert witness that the defendant appeared "normal” to him at the time of his arrest falls far short of impermissible expression of opinion testimony as to the defendant’s sanity. The mere appearance of "normalcy” is not coextensive with legal sanity or insanity.
So far as People v Cole, 382 Mich 695; 172 NW2d 354 (1969), discussed in some depth by the Chief Judge in his dissent, is concerned, I don’t believe it controls anything, much less being dis-positive of this case. Five separate opinions in that case agreed on nothing except that the conviction should be reversed for a variety of reasons, none of which commanded a majority. The decision in that case, in my view, is of no binding precedential value.
Thus, I make the very explicit and limited holding that on this record, as I read it, I find no preserved reversible error. This holding is supported by statute, MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096.
I also vote to affirm the conviction.