# People v. Stubl

> Michigan Court of Appeals · February 4, 1986 · 149 Mich. App. 42

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668022

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Stubl
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 4, 1986
- **Citations:** 149 Mich. App. 42; 385 N.W.2d 719
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Maher
- **Judges:** Beasley, Maher, Tahvonen
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668022

## Opinion text

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
In the instant case, defendant objected at trial to the witness’s statements on the ground of hearsay. The trial court recognized that the statements were hearsay, MRE 801(c), and acknowledged that the statements were inadmissible into evidence, MRE 802, yet overruled defendant’s objection and allowed the admission of the statements into evidence.
The majority opinion holds that the error in admitting the statements was harmless. I disagree. A determination of harmless error requires two inquiries. First, is the error so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial process that it never can be regarded as harmless? Second, if not, was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972).
I am of the opinion that the error is so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial process that it cannot be regarded as harmless.
"A large word like justice incorporated into a rule governing harmless error, [sic] compels an appellate court to concern itself not alone with a particular result but also with the very integrity of the judicial process.” Robinson, supra, p 562 , quoting Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error (Ohio State Univ Press, 1970), p 17.
The integrity of the judicial process will not be advanced by a trial court’s disregard for acknowledged evidentiary errors.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668022. Public record. Not legal advice.