Court Opinion

ID: 9678850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:33:59.501301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.448614
License: Public Domain

*665Mackenzie, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Defendant waived a preliminary examination, at which the facts underlying the charge would necessarily have been disclosed. Defendant also waived arraignment in circuit court on the information, and the circuit court file contains a document signed by both defendant and his counsel which includes the following representation:
"The undersigned defendant and attorney hereby acknowledge that defendant has received a copy of the information, has read or had it read or explained to the defendant, understands the substance of the charge, and waives Circuit Court Arraignment in open court.” (Emphasis added.)
The pretrial statement in the circuit court file contains the following statement:
"Prosecutor will list hereon, the following which he proposes to offer at trial:
"a. All physical exhibits (available for inspection by defense counsel upon written request) Redetermination of Eligibility form; Payroll checks; State of Michigan Treasurer’s warrant; Document Examiner Report; and Village of Sunfield Employment/Payroll Records”.
Even if defendant and his counsel did not bother to actually examine the proposed exhibits, the list clearly indicates that the changed circumstances to which the information refers involve defendant’s employment with the Village of Sunfield.
At the pretrial conference, counsel for defendant acknowledged the trial court’s statement that there were no motions to be resolved before trial. Defendant’s motion to quash the information was made at trial, after the jury was sworn, and was therefore untimely. MCL 767.76; MSA 28.1016; People v Schultz, 85 Mich 114, 116-117; 48 NW 293 *666(1891); People v Hawkins, 106 Mich 479, 486; 64 NW 736 (1895). No written motion to quash was ever filed, and, when defendant’s oral motion was made, the prosecutor complained that he had received no notice. Defendant never requested that the information be amended, never moved for a bill of particulars or for a more definite statement of the charge, never claimed that he was in any way surprised or misled as to the factual basis of the charge, and never moved for the continuance which MCL 767.76; MSA 28.1016 would allow if he was in fact misled.
The foregoing shows that defendant knew the factual basis of the charge against him and that defendant led the trial court and the prosecutor to believe before trial that there was no problem with the information. The record suggests that the delay in making the motion to quash the information was a deliberate dilatory tactic.
The majority relies on People v Brown, 299 Mich 1, 4; 299 NW 784 (1941), for the proposition that defendant’s actual knowledge of the factual basis of the charge against him is irrelevant to whether the information sufficiently identifies the charge against him to afford him due process. However, in Brown, defendant made a timely motion to quash the information. 299 Mich 2.
In Serra v Mortiga, 204 US 470; 27 S Ct 343; 51 L Ed 571 (1907), the complaint on which the criminal conviction was based omitted an essential element of the crime. The Supreme Court nevertheless held that defendant had not been denied due process, even though the lower court refused to consider the sufficiency of the complaint, because defendant made no timely objection. Serra shows that defendant was not denied due process under the circumstances presented here. The ma*667jority states that, because defendant made no timely objection to the information, we may reverse only to correct a manifest injustice. On this record, I discern no manifest injustice.
In Brown, supra, p 4, the Court stated that a correct information is essential to protect defendant from being placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense. Even assuming, however, that a claim of double jeopardy must be resolved on the information rather than on the entire record, the appropriate remedy here would be to remand 'the case for amendment of the information. See People v Kyllonen, 402 Mich 135, 149, fn 15; 262 NW2d 2 (1978), and People v Cherry, 27 Mich App 672; 183 NW2d 857 (1970).
I would affirm.