Court Opinion

ID: 9526996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:26:37.295521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:22.709195
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, J.
(concurring in result). I write separately to concur with the results reached in the "well-written opinion of my esteemed colleague, Judge Holbrook. However, I do not agree with his conclusion that defendant was entitled to only five *225peremptory challenges. MCL 769.13; MSA 28.1085 grants five. GCR 1963, 511.5 allows twenty. Rules supersede statutes. Buscaino v Rhodes, 385 Mich 474; 189 NW2d 202 (1971).
While I agree that a proceeding under an habitual offender statute, in this case MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083, does not constitute a crime, and was adopted by the Legislature to increase the penalty for previous crimes, People v Shotwell, 352 Mich 42; 88 NW2d 313 (1958), cert den 356 US 976; 78 S Ct 1141; 2 L Ed 2d 1149 (1958), nevertheless, the intent of the court rule is clear to me. It should apply whenever the defendant can receive a life sentence. If the court rule does not apply, why give defendant other rights that surround a criminal prosecution, such as a jury trial composed of twelve rather than six jurors? Note GCR 1963, 511.2.
However, due to the result reached and as defendant should have been tried as a third offender instead of a fourth, and we further reduced it to a second, I find the error to be harmless.