People v. Domin

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Domin

248 N.W.2d 250, 71 Mich. App. 315, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 953

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

DocketDocket No. 24261

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 N.W.2d 250 (People v. Domin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Domin, 248 N.W.2d 250, 71 Mich. App. 315, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 953 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

R. B. Burns, J.

Defendant was convicted of delivery, or possession with intent to deliver, of LSD in violation of MCLA 335.341(1)(b); MSA 18.1070(41)(1)(b). He appeals and we reverse.

The only evidence, at the preliminary exam, which tended to prove that the pills in the possession of the defendant were LSD was a laboratory analysis by the State Police. The person who prepared the report was not present and the report was submitted by the sheriff.

The defendant objected on the basis that the report was hearsay and not admissible. We agree. The report was hearsay and not admissible.

In People v Asta, 337 Mich 590, 612; 60 NW2d 472, 483 (1953), the Supreme Court said:

"On the preliminary examination, however, the defendants were, under the statute, entitled to have the witnesses examined in their presence. CL 1948, § 766.4 (Stat Ann § 28.922). In view of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, the fact that the crime charged had been committed could not be established by hearsay testimony.”

[317]*317Reversed and remanded.

T. M. Burns, P. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

R. B. Burns, J.

Defendant was convicted of delivery, or possession with intent to deliver, of LSD in violation of MCLA 335.341(1)(b); MSA 18.1070(41)(1)(b). He appeals and we reverse.

The only evidence, at the preliminary exam, which tended to prove that the pills in the possession of the defendant were LSD was a laboratory analysis by the State Police. The person who prepared the report was not present and the report was submitted by the sheriff.

The defendant objected on the basis that the report was hearsay and not admissible. We agree. The report was hearsay and not admissible.

In People v Asta, 337 Mich 590, 612; 60 NW2d 472, 483 (1953), the Supreme Court said:

"On the preliminary examination, however, the defendants were, under the statute, entitled to have the witnesses examined in their presence. CL 1948, § 766.4 (Stat Ann § 28.922). In view of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, the fact that the crime charged had been committed could not be established by hearsay testimony.”

[317]*317Reversed and remanded.

T. M. Burns, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.W.2d 250, 71 Mich. App. 315, 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-domin-michctapp-1976.

Opinions

R. B. Burns, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack