Court Opinion

ID: 9672289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:52:12.196528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.236136
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I am writing separately in this case because I can find no precise decisional authority in Michigan establishing what precedential authority is established by a footnote. Appellate judges and justices vary greatly in their use and their content. The limited case authority on this subject from other jurisdictions apparently recognizes that footnotes should be given the same legal effect as material in the text of the opinion. 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, § 189, p 525, 21 CJS, Courts, § 221, p 407.
.1 agree with Judge Allen that since the release of People v Turner, 390 Mich 7; 210 NW2d 336 (1973), the defense of entrapment is not jury submissible in Michigan.
Turner itself does not, as I read it, lay out the manner in which controverted contentions of the accused and the alleged entrapping officer or police agent are to be made of record.
It is my personal view that Mr. Justice Stewart in substance used the rationale of Jackson v Denno, 378 US 368; 84 S Ct 1774; 12 L Ed 2d 908 (1964),1 by analogy in recognizing that it is beyond human mental limitations to allow a jury to hear evidence clearly establishing the corpus delicti of a given offense and at the same time charge that if *201entrapment occurred this evidence is to be disregarded by them. I am moved to state that I sympathize with the trial judge in this case and in similar cases where a new rule is announced without spelling out the procedure to be followed as was done in People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (1965), which spawned the so-called "Walker” hearing.
Nonetheless Turner had been released and was the published law at the time this case was tried. Whether the defendant here was prejudiced by jury submission of the issue, as Judge Allen holds, I’m sure I don’t know. In any event he had the right to have the entrapment ruling made by the trial judge, prejudice or no prejudice. I think it would be very dangerous law to append this requirement to the rule of Turner, thus leaving the decision on that point to a reviewing appellate court.
Be all the foregoing as it may I feel I am bound to concur in reversal for the reason I have stated.
Now as to the footnotes. I am in total disagreement with my colleague’s holding in footnote 1 that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct in his argument or that he was "straddling the fence”. The thrust of the prosecutor’s comments went to the issue of defendant’s credibility and whether or not the jury should find the accused’s testimony worthy of belief in view of, inter alia, his unstable life style, demeanor on the stand and admitted use of drugs. In particular I see nothing wrong with the reference to the magnitude of the drug problem and the fact that persons involved in the use of controlled substances are not necessarily the most stable or reliable persons in our society. Thus the prosecutor was well within the scope of permissible comment.
*202I also believe the time has come for me to express a long held personal opinion, even though I have been guilty of signing opinions which use the phrase "Reversed and remanded for new trial”.
It is the function of appellate courts to affirm or reverse a conviction.
The status of the defendant is then exactly the same as it was before the verdict by the court or jury. Given the fact that he was bound over for trial in circuit court, whether the prosecutor decides to proceed again with a new information is his business, not the reviewing court which has no knowledge of what witnesses are available and other variables influencing the decision which the prosecuting attorney should be allowed to make. It is enough that we determine whether the conviction was or was not reversibly erroneous.
Thus it is my view that the phrase "Reversed and remanded for new trial”, which if literally read directs the prosecuting attorney to proceed with a new trial, should be discontinued.
It is sufficient to say "Reversed and remanded to the trial court for such further proceedings as may properly ensue” or simply "Reversed and remanded”.
Hence I concur in part and dissent in part, and vote with Judge Allen to reverse.

 See Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion in United States v Russell, 411 US 423; 93 S Ct 1637; 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973).