Court Opinion

ID: 9738635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:59:12.906838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.343162
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P.J.
(dissenting). I must dissent from the result reached by the majority on the issue of double jeopardy. For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in People v Hoffman, 81 Mich App 288; 265 NW2d 94 (1978), I read People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich 424; 240 NW2d 729 (1976), to require a personal manifestation by the defendant that he or she consents to a waiver of the protection against double jeopardy. The record *717herein does not disclose a statement to that effect by the defendant, nor a demonstration that defense counsel consulted with his client prior to making his motion for a mistrial. I would therefore hold that reprosecution of the defendant is barred by the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.
I would reverse.