People v. Pitchford

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Pitchford

189 N.W.2d 811, 33 Mich. App. 299, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1749

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9897

StatusPublished

This text of 189 N.W.2d 811 (People v. Pitchford) 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. Pitchford, 189 N.W.2d 811, 33 Mich. App. 299, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants were arrested and charged with illegal possession of marijuana.¹ Defendants were arraigned on March 7, 1970, before the district judge who had issued and signed the arrest warrant.

The preliminary examination, however, was held before another district judge. Defendants contend that they have a right under MCLA § 766.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.922), to have the preliminary examination held before the judge before whom the arraignment was held. In addition, they contend they were prejudiced because they intended to attack the legality of a search warrant at the preliminary examination and the search warrant was issued by the judge before whom the examination was held.

The statute which defendants assert gives them the right to have their preliminary examination held before the judge before whom defendants were arraigned has recently been amended to read:

“The magistrate before whom any person is brought on a charge of having committed an offense not cognizable by # * * the court before which he is brought shall set a day for examination not exceeding 12 days thereafter, at which time the court shall examine the complainant and the witnesses in support of the prosecution, on oath in the presence of the prisoner, in regard to the offense charged and in regard to any other matters connected with such [301]*301charge which * * * the court considers pertinent.” PA 1970, No 213, § 4.

The present statute thus provides for the very procedure which defendants now claim was error. If this matter were remanded, defendants’ preliminary examination would be conducted in accordance with the amended statutory provisions, thereby allowing for a course of events identical to the ones which prompted this appeal. Therefore, absent a showing of actual prejudice we find no basis upon which reversal may be grounded.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants were arrested and charged with illegal possession of marijuana.¹ Defendants were arraigned on March 7, 1970, before the district judge who had issued and signed the arrest warrant.

The preliminary examination, however, was held before another district judge. Defendants contend that they have a right under MCLA § 766.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.922), to have the preliminary examination held before the judge before whom the arraignment was held. In addition, they contend they were prejudiced because they intended to attack the legality of a search warrant at the preliminary examination and the search warrant was issued by the judge before whom the examination was held.

The statute which defendants assert gives them the right to have their preliminary examination held before the judge before whom defendants were arraigned has recently been amended to read:

“The magistrate before whom any person is brought on a charge of having committed an offense not cognizable by # * * the court before which he is brought shall set a day for examination not exceeding 12 days thereafter, at which time the court shall examine the complainant and the witnesses in support of the prosecution, on oath in the presence of the prisoner, in regard to the offense charged and in regard to any other matters connected with such [301]*301charge which * * * the court considers pertinent.” PA 1970, No 213, § 4.

The present statute thus provides for the very procedure which defendants now claim was error. If this matter were remanded, defendants’ preliminary examination would be conducted in accordance with the amended statutory provisions, thereby allowing for a course of events identical to the ones which prompted this appeal. Therefore, absent a showing of actual prejudice we find no basis upon which reversal may be grounded.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.W.2d 811, 33 Mich. App. 299, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pitchford-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack