Court Opinion

ID: 9725690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:00:13.907127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:18.073943
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, Jr., J.,
(concurring). I concur with the majority that defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. I write separately to distinguish this case from People v Meredith (On Remand), 209 Mich App 403; 531 NW2d 749 (1995), in which I dissented from the majority’s holding that MCL 762.8; MSA 28.851 provided a basis for venue in the prosecution of a conspiracy charge by the mere fact of a coconspirator’s travel through the prosecuting county. Id. at 408-409. It remains my opinion that mere travel through a county, without more, does not constitute an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy formed in another county. Id. at 416-417 (Holbrook, Jr., J., dissenting). In this case, however, the nexus between defendant Fisher’s felonious acts and the prosecuting county was not merely incidental or fortuitous, but, rather, was direct and substantial. As the majority in this case notes: “Here, the felony complaint stated Wayne County as one of the places of the offense and that defendant’s alleged acts were intended to affect proceedings pending in that county.” Ante, p 152. Thus, venue was properly established in Wayne County.
I concur in all other aspects of the majority opinion.