Court Opinion

ID: 9698902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:03:26.094604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.465147
License: Public Domain

*607T. E. Brennan, C. J.
I cannot agree that the amendment of the Recorder’s Court act by PA 1919, No 369 (MCLA § 725.1 et seq. [Stat Ann 1962 Rev and 1970 Cum Supp § 27.3941 et seq.]) gave rise to a new function in Recorder’s Court to which the pre-existing restriction on review by another judge (LA 1883, No 326, Ch XII, § 2, as amended by LA 1893, No 408 [CL 1948, § 726.2 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3552)]) could not have application.
It gave rise to a new function all right, but there is no reason to suppose that the legislature did not fully intend to vest that new function in a court whose judges were statutorily prohibited from reviewing each others decisions.
Whatever intra-court battles occasioned the adoption of the restriction upon intra-court review, the wisdom of preventing judges of equal station from overruling each other abides. And, the rationale applies especially to the split-level jurisdiction of Recorder’s Court.
I would vote to reverse, and in the light of the delay already experienced in this criminal prosecution, I would, under our superintending authority, remand this cause to the circuit court for Wayne County to hear and rule upon the prosecutor’s motion to remand to the magistrate.
Kelly, T. M. Kavanagh, Adams and T. Gr. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with T. E. Brennan, C. J.