Appeal from Marquette, Bernard H. Davidson, J.
D. E. Holbrook, P. J., and Allen and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ. Allen, J., concurs in result only.
1. -- Plea of Nolo Contendere -- Interrogation of Defendants -- Court Rules.
A defendant's disinclination to tell the court about his actions when entering a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge is sufficient reason for believing that the interests of the defendant and the proper administration of Justice do not require interrogation of the defendant regarding his participation in the crime (GCR 1963, 785.7).
2. -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Plea of Nolo Contendere -- Support for Finding of Guilt.
Testimony of a police officer relating statements made by a victim of an unarmed robbery, although clearly hearsay, may be considered and given probative effect as if it were in law competent evidence, where the officer is the only witness at a hearing to establish substantial support for finding that a defendant is in fact guilty of the unarmed robbery, to which charge the defendant has pleaded nolo contendere, and where the testimony is not objected to by the defendant.
3. -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Objections -- Appeal and Error.
Hearsay evidence which has been admitted without objection in a criminal case is entitled to consideration by an appellate court in support of the trial court's findings.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holbrook
Charles M. Maciejewski was convicted, on his plea of nolo contendere, of unarmed robbery. Defendant appeals.
On February 1, 1974, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of unarmed robbery, MCLA 750.530; MSA 28.798. He was thereafter sentenced to serve a 5 to 15 year prison sentence and now appeals as of right.
On appeal defendant raises three allegations of error, only two of which are of decisional merit.
Initially defendant claims that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of GCR 1963, 785.7(3)(d) insofar as such rule requires the Judge to first state reasons for believing that the interests of the defendant and the proper administration of Justice do not require interrogation of the defendant regarding his participation of the crime. Here the trial Judge stated:
"I will not inquire of you as to your participation in this crime and I will do so for the reason that I understand that you are reticent about ...