People v. Hunter

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Brooks

    96 Mich. App. 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    The officer's initial efforts fall far short of "due diligence" and cannot be excused. See People v McIntosh, 389 Mich. 82; 204 N.W.2d 135 (1973), People v Tees, 386 Mich. 483; 192 N.W.2d 241 (1971), People v Starr, 89 Mich. App. 342; 280 N.W.2d 519 (1979), People v Hunter, 48 Mich. App. 497; 210 N.W.2d 884 (1973). Once the lack of due diligence is established, the court must determine if the defendant suffered manifest injustice based on the witness's nonproduction.

  2. People v. Starr

    89 Mich. App. 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 13 times

    Where there are specific leads as to a witness's location, the prosecutor must check them out. See McIntosh, supra, People v Hunter, 48 Mich. App. 497; 210 N.W.2d 884 (1973), lv den 390 Mich. 805 (1973). Due diligence circumscribes not only efforts to pursue specific leads, but also those endeavors reasonably likely to produce them.

  3. People v. Harringer

    65 Mich. App. 649 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    Preliminary examination testimony of a res gestae witness not produced at trial may be used at trial where the prosecution shows due diligence in its efforts to produce the witness. People v McIntosh, 389 Mich. 82; 204 N.W.2d 135 (1973), People v Hunter, 48 Mich. App. 497; 210 N.W.2d 884 (1973). As with the prosecution's duty to produce res gestae witnesses at trial generally (see e.g. People v Smith, 59 Mich. App. 25; 228 N.W.2d 826), the question of due diligence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will be overturned on appeal only where an abuse of discretion is found.

  4. People v. Phillips

    61 Mich. App. 138 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 18 times

    Thus, the prosecution must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the trial court that it, with due diligence and in good-faith, attempted to procure the attendance of the witness. See, for instance, People v. Hunter, 48 Mich. App. 497, 503; 210 N.W.2d 884, 887 (1973), and People v. Johnson, 51 Mich. App. 224, 230; 214 N.W.2d 713, 716 (1974). The question of due diligence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will be overturned by this Court only when a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.

  5. State v. Greer

    27 Ariz. App. 197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 6 times

    The fact that an expert investigator did not exercise his full expertise in trying to locate a missing witness is no excuse, Hewell v. State, 136 Ga. App. 420, 221 S.E.2d 219 (1975), nor is a showing that had due diligence been exercised it would have been to no avail. People v. Hunter, 48 Mich. App. 497, 210 N.W.2d 884 (1973). We hold, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the State had made a sufficient effort to place Garrett under subpoena.