Court Opinion

ID: 9696986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:03:03.216915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:28.405408
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). We deem it necessary to record a reservation in our concurrence with the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice Deti-imers.
By reason of the incompleteness of our record we believe it impossible to pass on the issue decided by the trial court, and urged in support of that decision by the appellee. A skimpy record tells us only that a motion to dismiss the complaint was timely made, i.e., at the first opportunity after a witness was sworn. Someone named Myrtle G-ravier, unidentified except as a witness on the part of the people testified to her name and address. Immediately thereupon counsel made his apparent oral motion. This ploy, we assume, was intended as insurance against retrial by reason of prior jeopardy.
We have no information as to the basis upon which the trial court made its finding that the complaint was issued on other than the statutory requirement that the justice “examine the complainant on oath and witnesses produced by him, * * * and if it shall appear that such offense has been committed, the justice shall issue his warrant.” (CL 1948, § 774.4, as amended by PA 1958, No 136 [Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 28.1195].)
*161We subscribe in a general way to tbe statement by tbe trial court that “it is not fair to make something legal by doing it illegally,” — and under a proper record we might well want to re-examine some existing precedent.
However, we may not on review assume to have been done, that which is only alleged to have been done in conclusionary terms, when such action forms the whole basis of the challenge to the validity of the proceedings.
For want of any of record information establishing the insufficiency of the complaint, we concur with Justice Dethmers.
Black, Kavanagh, Souris, and Smith, JJ., concurred with O’Hara, J.