From this evidence plus the testimony of the Sturgeons regarding Judy Sturgeon's affair with Douglas Nash and defendant's unwillingness to agree to a divorce, a rational factfinder could reasonably infer that defendant, upon sudden provocation, killed her husband. Defendant alleges error in the trial court's refusal to instruct on fingerprint evidence in accordance with People v Cullens, 55 Mich. App. 272, 275; 222 N.W.2d 315 (1974), quoting People v Ware, 12 Mich. App. 512, 515; 163 N.W.2d 250 (1968), to wit: "To warrant a conviction, the fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused must have been found in the place where the crime was committed under such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed."
In addition, the defendant cannot, subsequent to his guilty plea, raise questions about the sufficiency of the evidence before the examining magistrate. Id., at 498, People v Cullens, 55 Mich. App. 272; 222 N.W.2d 315 (1974). Accordingly, we conclude that the issue has not been preserved for appellate review.
He cannot now be heard to complain. Cf. People v Cullens, 55 Mich. App. 272, 274; 222 N.W.2d 315, 316 (1974), People v Miller, 62 Mich. App. 495, 497; 233 N.W.2d 629, 630 (1975). V
Likewise, the defendant cannot, subsequent to his guilty plea, raise questions about the sufficiency of the evidence before the examining magistrate. People v Cullens, 55 Mich. App. 272; 222 N.W.2d 315 (1974). The defendant's argument that a magistrate's error in finding probable cause is a jurisdictional defect misconstrues Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge, 391 Mich. 115; 215 N.W.2d 145 (1974).
For purposes of argument on appeal, we assume that the conclusion that the latent fingerprint was Willis' was based on five points of similarity. For description of the procedure, see People v Cullens, 55 Mich. App. 272, 273, fn 1; 222 N.W.2d 315 (1974). At one point in his testimony, Captain Hass states that there were 11 or 12 points in common between Willis' known print and the latent one.
Since the prosecution did not establish that the fingerprints could only have been impressed at the time when the crime was committed, a conviction of an unknown principal could not be based upon this fingerprint evidence, standing alone. People v Cullens, 55 Mich. App. 272; 222 N.W.2d 315 (1974). The prosecution also alleges that the fact the defendant was accompanied by another person when he cashed the check stolen from Northland justifies the charge of aiding and abetting.