Court Opinion

ID: 9663045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:26:36.997273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:45.088019
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
I concur in the opinion of Justice Boyle in all respects, save one. I cannot agree that a jury view is not part of the trial. On that point I agree with the opinion of Justice Cavanagh. In People v Morgan, 400 Mich 527; 255 NW2d 603 (1977), cert den sub nom Cargile v Michigan, 434 US 967 (1977), this Court held that a defendant’s absence from a trial is subject to the harmless error rule. Defendant has identified no actual harm as a result of his not being present at the jury view, and no harm is apparent from the record. Since the jury view concerned a witness’ view of the crime scene from his (the witness’) apartment, it is highly improbable that defendant’s presence could have in any way aided his defense. Therefore the error should be deemed harmless.
I do not find any impediment to an application of the harmless error rule in MCL 768.3; MSA 28.1026, which states that a "person indicted for a felony shall [not] be tried unless personally present during trial,” but that persons charged with misdemeanors may "at their own request ... be put on trial in their absence.” This Court has previously looked to whether the defendant was prejudiced by the absence at trial when applying *270the statute. See People v Raider, 256 Mich 131; 239 NW 387 (1931). Therefore, defendants’ convictions should be affirmed.
Ryan, J., concurred with Brickley, J.