People v. Willis, 533

• Decision Date: 20 September 1965
• Docket Number: No. 533,No. 1,533,1
• Citation: 1 Mich.App. 428,136 N.W.2d 723
• Parties: PEOPLE of the Sate of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 723

136 N.W.2d 723

1 Mich.App. 428

PEOPLE of the Sate of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Henry WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

Cal. No. 533.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Sept. 20, 1965.

Lawrence W. Massey, Detroit, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros.Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C. J., and GILLIS and WATTS, JJ.

LESINSKI, Chief Judge.

DefendantHenry Willis appeals from a conviction by jury of the crime of accepting the earnings of a prostitute in violation of C.L.1948, 750.457 (Stat.Ann. § 28.712).The errors claimed on appeal were at the preliminary examination and not at the trial itself.

The examination was held in the recorder's court of Detroit between the 17th and 20th days of March, 1964.Defense counsel claims the examining magistrate berated him and admitted into evidence inadmissible hearsay 'thereby prejudicing defendant's rights to a fair examination.'Upon completion of the examination, defendant was bound over for trial.

The record laid before this Court reveals that at the trial, in Detroit recorder's court, no objections were made by the defense to any alleged errors in the preliminary examination.The question of whether proper examination had been accorded the defendant was first raised on motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court.

From this ruling defendant appeals.

Failure to object to alleged insufficiency or irregularity in the examination prior to or during the trial constitutes a waiver of the right to object, and counsel cannot raise this question initially on motion for new trial or at the appellate stage.The Supreme Court has ruled that the appellate courts of this state will not hear appeals on matters that were not preserved in the record.In People v. Matteson(1937), 280 Mich. 218, 273 N.W. 454, the defendant appealed a larceny conviction claiming the complaint and information did not inform him of the real charge against him, thus denying his constitutional rights.The Court said at page 221, 273 N.W. at page 455;

'Upon other occasions we have said that objections not raised during the trial and passed upon by the trial court will not be heard here for the first time.'(Emphasis added.)See also: People v. Kowalek(1941), 296 Mich. 714, 296 N.W. 856;People v. Hallman(1941), 299 Mich. 657, 1 N.W.2d 28;People v. Huey(1956), 345 Mich. 120, 75 N.W.2d 893;People v. Oates, (1963), 369 Mich. 214, 119 N.W.2d 530.

In the Hallman and Oates Casesthe Court on appeal emphasizes that the examination issue was not even raised on motion for new trial, but this Court does not interpret those cases to imply that raising the issue on motion for new trial...