Court Opinion

ID: 9724257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:50:18.97015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:58.620073
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring in result). I agree that the denial of the defense motion to conduct personalized voir dire was not reversible error. If there is to be personalized voir dire of right, the rul1 ought to provide for it.
I do not agree that Cole was an accomplice of defendant Jones. I cannot see how he possibly could be. I think the prosecution was obligated to endorse him and call him so that the defense could cross-examine him. Simple justice or due process, whichever term is used, demanded it. This I regard as reversible error.
As to the accomplice exception rule, I said all I could on the subject in People v Mitchell, 48 Mich App 361; 210 NW2d 509 (1973).
I find no merit in the entrapment defense and agree with Judge Bronson for the reasons he advanced.
*346As to the unfair argument and unfair trial tactics I must confess I do not share Judge Bronson’s apparent sense of outrage. If the defendant has some objections to the prosecutor’s tactics or argument he could have made his objection and obtained a ruling on which I could pass decision-ally.
In my view what the prosecutor argued in this case was permissible comment on the defendant’s testimony. She used the word "junkie” and the prosecutor was entitled to express his view as to what the term meant.2 I eschew any part of the personal reprimand in my colleague’s opinion. For the reasons. stated herein, I join in voting to reverse the conviction.

 GCR 1963, 511.3. See also People v Brown, 46 Mich App 592; 208 NW2d 590 (1973).

 See People v John Martin, 37 Mich App 621; 194 NW2d 909 (1972), remanded for resentencing in 387 Mich 766 (1972).