Court Opinion

ID: 9851994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:22:46.942247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:20.938086
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, P. J.
(concurring in result). This *397writer has carefully considered my brother Judge M. F. Cavanagh’s opinion in this case and appreciates the dedicated work that is reflected in his fine opinion. Because I do not deem it necessary to agree with all of his reasoning in order to dispose of this case, I would concur in the result The reason for this opinion is that in camera questioning should not be permitted, unless unusual facts exist or until the Michigan Supreme Court has spoken on the question. Further, if in camera proceedings are required under certain circumstances, this writer is apprehensive that innovative minds of defense counsel may advance claims that require in camera proceedings wherein the result obtained reveals only a fishing expedition was desired.
I have noted my brother Judge R. B. Burns’ opinion and likewise am in complete agreement with the result obtained by Judge T. M. Burns in People v Thompson, 76 Mich App 705; 257 NW2d 268 (1977).
There may be a case in the future where this writer may have to declare his decision in the matter, but declines to do so in this case because he deems it unnecessary.
Affirmed as to result.