Court Opinion

ID: 9861915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:54:30.371864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:47.874952
License: Public Domain

BreNNAN, J.
Both defendants in this case were represented by attorneys when they appeared in court on January 9, 1963. At that time, there was a discussion between counsel and the court about the legal question of whether these defendants could properly be charged with second-degree murder. The prosecutor moved an amended information be filed, charging these defendants with second-degree murder. Counsel for both of these defendants joined in the prosecutor’s motion to so amend the information. The court permitted the information to be amended, and thereupon accepted pleas of guilty from both defendants upon the amended charge. Defendants now claim that they were not guilty of second-degree murder. They claim that they should have been charged with first-degree murder. They claim that the homicide in this case was committed in the process of the commiggÍQn qf an armed *135robbery, and that therefore, under CL 1948, § 750-.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548), the murder is defined as murder of the first degree.
Even if appellants’ stated contention were sound, which we need not determine, the result would have to be the same. An error (if any) in the formal charge lodged against a defendant is procedural only. It is waived by the entry of a plea thereto. Furthermore, this Court will not regard as the basis for a new trial or reversal of a-conviction any procedural error which does not result in a miscarriage of justice. GCR 1963, 529; CL 1948, § 769-.26.*
If there is any miscarriage of justice, under these circumstances it can only be one in which the people of the State of Michigan have exacted an insufficient penalty. Putting it another way, if there has been, under these circumstances, a miscarriage of justice, it is a miscarriage which ran to the benefit of the defendants and to the detriment of the people. Of such a miscarriage of justice, only the people can complain.
Court of Appeals order affirmed.
Dethmees, C. J., and Kelly, Black, and O’Haba, JJ., concurred with BeeNNAN, J.

 “Sec. 26. No judgment or verdiet shall he set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted by any court of this State in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”