Court Opinion

ID: 9741070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:49:03.869723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.113057
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). Whether the Supreme Court’s holding in People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367; 212 NW2d 196 (1973), is to be given retroactive application is still an open question. See People v Rich, 394 Mich 804 (1975), People v Elmer D. Robinson, 394 Mich 804 (1975). The language in People v Crittle, supra, 374, suggests prospective application as do the traditional factors used in deciding the question of retroactivity. See People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). See also, People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 746, fn 6; 223 NW2d 330 (1974). I would apply Crittle prospectively.