Court Opinion

ID: 9736850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:08:23.580982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.054173
License: Public Domain

G. S. Allen, J.
(concurring). While I concur with the majority’s opinion, I write separately to express my disagreement with defendants’ interpretation of Krzysiak v Hinton, 104 Mich App 134; 304 NW2d 823 (1981), and Palmiter v Monroe Co Bd of Road Comm’rs, 149 Mich App 678, 692, n 2; 387 NW2d 388 (1986). I do not construe Krzysiak or Palmiter, supra, as authority for the proposition that the failure to raise in a motion for a new trial the propriety of a trial court’s ruling on requested jury instructions or the admissibility of evidence in itself renders the question unpreserved for appellate review. In Krzysiak, counsel did not object on the record when the trial court declined to ask certain voir dire jury questions. Thus, in the absence of something in the record by way of an objection, a motion, or a subsequent motion for a new trial, the issue of the propriety of the court’s ruling is unpreserved.
The Palmiter panel’s reliance on Krzysiak was made only by way of a footnote. Because the reference was fleeting and thereafter the Court discussed the issue on its merits, I consider Palmiter enfeebled authority for the rule stated.