Court Opinion

ID: 9658872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:19:45.991211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:00.980735
License: Public Domain

Thorburn, J.
(dissenting). The issues raised in this .Court were not presented to the trial Court. ■
This Court in an opinion by Judge Fitzgerald, concurred in by Chief Judge Lesinski and Judge McGregor, reviewing the trial of this case reached the conclusion that the people had not proven that defendant Schrader lacked a license to carry a' concealed weapon. This had little effect upon the life and liberty of defendant Schrader, as the concealed weapon charge now held for naught carried a sentence of three to five years in prison, to run concurrently with a robbery armed sentence of 15 to 30 years in prison. People v. Schrader (1968), 10 Mich App 211, 217.
Defendant Schrader therefore will continue to reside in Jackson Prison for some time to come.
Defendant Gould, determined by the jury to be a co-conspirator, for reasons best known to the jury was not convicted of robbery armed but of larceny from a person and carrying a concealed weapon without a license. The only testimony or reference during the trial to the presence or absence of the license to carry a concealed weapon follows:
“Eleanor Blaskowski, sworn by the court clerk on behalf of the people, was examined and testified as follows:

“Direct Examination.

“By Mr. Laster:

[1.] “Q. What is your name?
“A. Eleanor Blaskowski.
*94[2.] “Q. And what is yonr occupation?
“A. Clerk 3 at the county clerk’s office.
[3.] “Q. Wayne county clerk’s office?
“A. That is right, sir.
[4.] “Q. And that is for — under the direction of Edgar M. Branigan, the county clerk?
“A. That is right.
[5.] “Q. Did you have occasion to search the records of the Wayne county clerk’s office to determine whether or not William Schrader, Walter G-ould and Louis Copciac had a license to carry a concealed weapon?
“A. Not at the present time.
[6.] “Q. They do not have a license?
“A. No, sir.”
Referring to these questions by number, it is apparent that the prosecutor proceeded swimmingly until the clerk in answer to question no. 5, a question that should have been answered yes or no, gave the thoroughly unresponsive answer, “Not at the present time”. The prosecutor, recognizing that this answer could only mean that the clerk had examined the records and discovered no evidence of the gun license for any of the defendants Iron! the beginning of the world to the present moment, recovered neatly by posing question no. 6: “They do not have a license?” meaning obviously at the time of the crime (the time of the crime having been established by previous proofs referred to in opening statements and not being an issue in the case).
The clerk in complete response answered, “No, sir”, meaning she found no evidence of a license granted to the defendants at any point in time.
There was no cross-examination of the clerk, no reference by opening statements* motions to quash, to dismiss, requests to charge, final arguments, or objection or exception to the'charge. In short, no *95reference by defendants in any way to tbe lack of proof, of no license by tbe people. A reading of tbe complete transcript makes it painfully apparent tbat defendants’ counsel, the prosecutor, tbe trial judge, and most important, tbe jury, all understood and construed tbe questions put and tbe answers given to mean tbat the clerk had indeed searched tbe records and found no record of a license to carry a concealed weapon issued to the defendant Gould.
Tbe sole reclining customer, whose wallet was stolen, was not named in tbe information as was tbe waitress'; Again, as with lack of license, proofs were admitted and a charge was given to tbe jury on'larceny from the person, but this defect was not mentioned throughout tbe course of the trial and is raised for tbe first time on. appeal.
• Tbe failure to raise a question in the lower court precludes this Court considering it on appeal. Young v. Morrow (1960), 359 Mich 180, 187; Therrian v. General Laboratories, Inc. (1964), 372 Mich 487, 490.
Justice Brennan in People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich. 131, 135 recites tbe rule in Michigan:
“Any error (if any) in tbe formal charge lodged against a defendant is procedural only. It is waived by tbe 'entry of a plea thereto. Furthermore, this Court will not regard as tbe basis for a new trial or reversal of a conviction any procedural error which does not-result in a miscarriage of justice. GCR 1963, 529; CL 1948, § 769.26.”*
*96This Court should not consider errors (if any) first raised on appeal when so eagerly waived in the trial court.
I vote to affirm.

 “See. 26. No judgment or verdict shall he set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted by any court of this state in any criminal ease, on the ground" of' misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”