Court Opinion

ID: 9665788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:57:13.863351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:19.040492
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(dissenting). To reach its conclusion that still another reversal of still another conviction must be ordered, our majority strains aport too much at the record of proceedings in circuit and presents what to me is an overstatement of “favorable view”, favorable to the defendant that is, much as is properly accorded the plaintiff in a negligence action when the sufficiency of his evidence is tested by a peremptory motion. Things are the other way around when this Court is asked by a convict to review a presented question of probable cause. In such instance he bears the burden of persuasion that reversible error was committed.
I stand by the somewhat more thorough review of the proceedings in circuit which Division 3 has recorded (People v. Charles D. Walker [1970], 25 Mich App 418-428) and point particularly to the record made before the trial judge on March 3 and again on March 4, 1969 — before the trial actually commenced. Our majority concedes (ante at p 572) that at the March 4 stage at least the testimony “clearly established probable cause.”
Division 3 concluded, and I concur (25 Mich App at 431):
“We rule in this case that the people brought forth testimony in a hearing before the trial that the arrest of the defendant without a warrant was based *577on probable cause and was lawful and that the search and seizure having been made incident to that lawful arrest were valid and the evidence properly admitted.”
Supplement (August 21):
The foregoing declaration of viewpoint was delivered to the other Justices July 6, 1971. Since then Justice Williams has submitted to us a separate opinion standing for affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and our original apparent majority has become a minority. My vote to affirm stands, as before.
T. E. Brennan, J., concurred with Black, J.