Court Opinion

ID: 9710238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:05:08.672861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.320591
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting.) I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that reversible error resulted from the judge’s absence from the courtroom. I do not approve of the judge’s practice, but am unable to find that reversible error arose in the circumstances presented in this case.
The majority correctly states the general rule described in Michigan case law, namely, the absence of the judge from the courtroom at any stage of trial will not be considered reversible error unless it is shown to have resulted in prejudice to the complaining parties. People v Morehouse, 328 Mich 689; 44 NW2d 830 (1950), cert den 341 US 922; 71 S Ct 739; 95 L Ed 1355 (1951); Wolfe v Granover, 249 Mich 626, 629; 229 NW 617 (1930); People v Clyburn, 55 Mich App 454, 459; 222 NW2d 775 (1974).
In this case the judge ruled on evidentiary objections before the deposition testimony was read. No evidentiary objections were raised during the presentation of the deposition testimony which would have required the judge’s presence. No claim was made that the judge would not have been readily *669available in the event an evidentiary objection had been raised. The record shows that the judge repeated his cautionary instruction to the jury before the depositions of Taylor, Lowe, Ausman, Norgiel, and Topcik were read. The record indicates that, out of four days of testimony, the deposition testimony lasted approximately three and one-half hours, a comparatively short amount of time. No claim is made that misconduct on the part of the jurors or other individuals present in the courtroom occurred in the judge’s absence. The judge properly instructed the jury to recall the evidence as best as possible upon plaintiffs objection during closing arguments. On this record I find no prejudice to plaintiff, and thus no reversible error..
In an analogous case, Bakhit v Thomsen, 193 Neb 133; 225 NW2d 860 (1975), a similar conclusion was reached. After the jury had commenced its deliberations, it requested the reading of a deposition. The trial judge, having commenced another trial, was not available and was not present during the reading of the deposition. The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that no prejudice arose because the reading was purely a mechanical function involving no discretion and no courtroom misconduct was alleged to have occurred.
I note that the Michigan Court Rules of 1985 do not expressly refer to the presence or the absence of the trial judge during the reading of deposition testimony. I believe that this subject is one more appropriately left to our Supreme Court to address via court rule.
I would affirm.