# People v. Prast

> Michigan Court of Appeals · April 5, 1982 · 114 Mich. App. 469

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736684

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Prast (On Rehearing)
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 5, 1982
- **Citations:** 114 Mich. App. 469; 319 N.W.2d 627
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Corsiglia
- **Judges:** Danhof, Kelly, Corsiglia
- **Cited by:** 46 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/9736684

## Opinion text

G. R. Corsiglia, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority opinion vacating our original decision in People v Prast, 105 Mich App 744 ; 307 NW2d 719 (1981). The reasons for my dissent are set forth in the original majority opinion, which is incorporated by reference herein.
In addition, I would emphasize that the venue issue presented by this case was a close and difficult question. As stated by Chief Judge Danhof in his original concurring opinion, "it is unfortunate that defendant should obtain a retrial when the evidence against him was overwhelming * * *”. *494 However, 57 percent of the jury panel was excused for cause in this case. Change of venue was the appropriate and relatively simple remedy to avoid a potentially biased and tainted jury. In view of the circumstances present at the time of trial, the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing the defendant’s request for a change of venue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736684. Public record. Not legal advice.