Court Opinion

ID: 9686909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:11:05.889393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.921270
License: Public Domain

Coleman, C.J.
(concurring). I concur in the results reached. Although the result in Jones may not be statutorily1 or constitutionally required, especially in the absence of any allegation or showing of prejudice from the delay,2 it is based on this Court’s supervisory powers over the practices *100and procedures used in the courts of this state.3 In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the prosecutor should file the habitual offender information with the information charging the principal offense when he or she has prior knowledge of defendant’s previous conviction(s). Such information should be drawn up and presented so as to insure that it will not place the defendant’s past criminal record before the jury prior to the jury’s finding of guilt or innocence on the principal charge. See People v Burd, 1 Mich App 178; 134 NW2d 843 (1965).
Ryan, J., concurred with Coleman, C.J.

 See State v McCraw, 59 NM 348; 284 P2d 670 (1955). Compare, Colo Rev Stat, § 16-13-103(6).

 Oyler v Boles, 368 US 448; 82 S Ct 501; 7 L Ed 2d 446 (1962), Graham v West Virginia, 224 US 616; 32 S Ct 583; 56 L Ed 917 (1912), Wessling v Bennett, 410 F2d 205 (CA 8, 1969); cert den 396 US 945 (1969). See, also, People v Marshall, 41 Mich App 66; 199 NW2d 521 (1972); Dickey v Florida, 398 US 30; 90 S Ct 1564; 26 L Ed 2d 26 (1970).

 Const 1963, art 6, § 5; see People v Sinclair, 387 Mich 91, 122; 194 NW2d 878 (1972) (opinion by Swainson, J.), People v Hamilton, 359 Mich 410; 102 NW2d 738 (1960); see, also, McNabb v United States, 318 US 332; 63 S Ct 608; 87 L Ed 819 (1943).