Court Opinion

ID: 9664171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:05:29.210067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.748919
License: Public Domain

Lesinski, C. J.
(dissenting). The majority of the panel properly concluded that the trial court committed error in relieving the prosecution of the duty to produce Samuel Jackson who was indorsed as a res gestae witness on motion during trial. The record made at trial does not excuse his nonproduction. Further, it was error for the trial court, upon the people’s motion, to strike him as a res gestae witness under the facts of this case. In addition, the trial court erroneously denied the prosecution and the defense the right to present evidence on the question of whether Samuel Jackson was in fact a res gestae witness and what efforts were made by the prosecution to produce him as a witness at the trial then in progress.
I find myself at variance with my brothers in their excusing this error on the grounds that, in essence, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and that there was no showing that Jackson’s testimony would have been any different than that of the witnesses produced and called.
The right to have all res gestae witnesses produced at trial by the prosecution is a most valuable right afforded in this state both by statute, MCLA *162767.40; MSA 28.980, and case law, People v Barker, 18 Mich App 544 (1969). This right was established to assure to the defendant a fair trial at which all witnesses, even those who may be favorable to the defendant, will be produced by the prosecution. In determining whether or not the prosecution’s failure to produce a res gestae witness may be excused, the weight or the quantum of the evidence presented against the defendant should not be considered, because we have no way of knowing how strong the case for the prosecution would be if the witness had been produced.
Also, it is error for my Brethren to shift the onus of producing the alleged res gestae witness from the prosecution to the defendant. That is the effect of requiring a showing by the defendant that the witness would testify differently than the witnesses produced and called. While Michigan cases* hold that error is not prejudicial if the testimony of the nonproduced witness is cumulative, they will not support the position of the majority.
Thus, this case cannot be affirmed on the present state of the record. If the trial court had taken a modicum of time at trial to establish a record concerning the status of Jackson as a res gestae witness, and the effort expended by the prosecution to produce him, the validity of this trial could have been protected. The difficulties involved in obtaining such a record at trial would have been minimal. To rectify the record’s silence on these points will now require inconvenience to the defendant, the state, and the courts.
This cause should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Jackson is a res gestae witness, and further, if he *163is found to be a res gestae witness, whether the prosecution exercised due diligence in attempting to produce him.

 People v Campbell, 30 Mich App 43 (1971); People v Romano, 35 Mich App 135 (1971).