Numerous Michigan cases have held that a criminal complaint, warrant, or information are valid even if they were signed by a police officer rather than by the victim of the crime. People v. Carriger, 37 Mich. App. 605, 609 (1972); People v. Luster, 34 Mich. App. 447, 450-51 (1971); People v. Gilleylen, 31 Mich. App. 416, 423 (1971); People v. Hosack, 16 Mich. App. 552, 553 (1969); People v. Andriacci, 11 Mich. App. 482, 485-86 (1968). Secondly, assuming that Petitioner's arrest was illegal, he would still not be entitled to relief.
That is entirely proper and legal under the circumstances. See 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law Procedure (2d ed), ยง 175, p 209; People v. Andriacci, 11 Mich. App. 482 (1968); People v. Linscott, 14 Mich. App. 334 (1968); People v. Hosack, 16 Mich. App. 552 (1969); and People v. Coss, 18 Mich. App. 419 (1969). The defendant relies very largely upon People v. Hernandez, 15 Mich. App. 141 (1968), in which the defendant, an uneducated man who could not read or write English, sold a certain quantity of narcotics to an Alma Silva, who was acting as the purchaser in behalf of a Federal agent.
People v. Walker (On Rehearing, 1965), 374 Mich. 331; People v. Wright (1967), 6 Mich. App. 495. People v. Marsh (1968), 14 Mich. App. 518, and People v. Hosack (1969), 16 Mich. App. 552, held that inadmissible statements and confessions may not be used to impeach testimony of the accused. The trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to use the statements for impeachment purposes.
The prosecutor must also show due diligence in producing witnesses indorsed on the information. People v. Zabijak (1938), 285 Mich. 164; People v. Kern (1967), 6 Mich. App. 406. However, in People v. Hosack (1969), 16 Mich. App. 552, this Court held that failure of the prosecutor to call a witness, after listing him on the information, was not error where the witness was not a res gestae witness and defendant did not ask for him to be called. Here, defendants specifically waived production of detective Provencal.
On the basis of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436 ( 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974), and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 U.S. 478 ( 84 S Ct 1758, 12 L Ed 2d 977), the majority opinion holds that it was reversible error to admit the testimony of detective Snyder for impeachment purposes. If Snyder's testimony was inadmissible under the Miranda and Escobedo standards, it was not admissible for impeachment purposes, People v. Hosack (1969), 16 Mich. App. 552, and I would concur in reversal. However, defendant concedes that he was not in custody when he made the statement related by Snyder and that Miranda, supra, does not apply.