wisdom rule in Michigan

2012As the Court of Appeals so eloquently stated in Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v Detroit, 218 Mich App 263, 270 ; 553 NW2d 679 (1996): The wisdom of the principle of judicial restraint expressed by our Supreme Court in [Attorney General v Ingham Circuit Judge, 347 Mich 579 ; 81 NW2d 349 (1957)], is self-evident; the notion that our courts may precipitously intervene in the political arena and preempt a vote of the people is inconsistent with both the role of the courts and the principles of our democracy.

2012As the Court of Appeals so eloquently stated in Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v Detroit, 218 Mich App 263, 270 ; 553 NW2d 679 (1996): The wisdom of the principle of judicial restraint expressed by our Supreme Court in [Attorney General v Ingham Circuit Judge, 347 Mich 579 ; 81 NW2d 349 (1957)], is self-evident; the notion that our courts may precipitously intervene in the political arena and preempt a vote of the people is inconsistent with both the role of the courts and the principles of our democracy.

2000Although we respect the principle of stare decisis, we also recognize the common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an inexorable command. [Citations omitted.] As we recently explained in Robinson, supra, a judicial tribunal is most strongly justified in its reversal of precedent when adherence to such precedent would perpetuate a plainly incorrect interpretation of the language of a constitutional provision or statute.

2000Although we respect the principle of stare decisis, we also recognize the common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an inexorable command. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, as we recently explained in Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000), a court is most justified in overruling an earlier case if the prior court misconstrued a statute.

2020People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 39 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). “[A] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel premised on the failure to call witnesses is analyzed under the same standard as all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, i.e., a defendant must show that ‘(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.’ ” People v Jurewicz, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020) (Docket No. 160318), quoting Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 .

2020People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 39 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). “[A] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel premised on the failure to call witnesses is analyzed under the same standard as all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, i.e., a defendant must show that ‘(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.’ ” People v Jurewicz, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020) (Docket No. 160318), quoting Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 .

2020People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 39 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). “[A] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel premised on the failure to call witnesses is analyzed under the same standard as all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, i.e., a defendant must show that ‘(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.’ ” People v Jurewicz, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020) (Docket No. 160318), quoting Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 .

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2018The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record.’ ”7 2 People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691 ; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). 3 People v Rao, 491 Mich 271, 279 ; 815 NW2d 105 (2012). 4 Cress, 468 Mich at 691 . 5 MCR 2.613(C) (“[R]egard shall be given to the special opportu

2016The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record. -7- “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2016The judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do not appear of record. -7- “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 410 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2012As the Court of Appeals so eloquently stated in Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v Detroit, 218 Mich App 263, 270 ; 553 NW2d 679 (1996): The wisdom of the principle of judicial restraint expressed by our Supreme Court in [Attorney General v Ingham Circuit Judge, 347 Mich 579 ; 81 NW2d 349 (1957)], is self-evident; the notion that our courts may precipitously intervene in the political arena and preempt a vote of the people is inconsistent with both the role of the courts and the principles of our democracy.

2012As the Court of Appeals so eloquently stated in Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v Detroit, 218 Mich App 263, 270 ; 553 NW2d 679 (1996): The wisdom of the principle of judicial restraint expressed by our Supreme Court in [Attorney General v Ingham Circuit Judge, 347 Mich 579 ; 81 NW2d 349 (1957)], is self-evident; the notion that our courts may precipitously intervene in the political arena and preempt a vote of the people is inconsistent with both the role of the courts and the principles of our democracy.

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1978However, we will not hold that defendant’s lack of objection in the instant case is a bar to a review of his claim of error. 6 People v Cole, 349 Mich 175 ; 84 NW2d 711 (1957), People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289 ; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). 7 People v Davison, 12 Mich App 429 ; 163 NW2d 10 (1968), People v Smith, 64 Mich App 263 ; 235 NW2d 754 (1975). 8 People v Smith, supra, People v Young, 364 Mich 554 ; 111 NW2d 870 (1961). 9 People v Smith, supra, at 267. 10 Id. 11 MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; GCR 1963, 516.2, People v Burden, 395 Mich 462 ; 236 NW2d 505 (1975). 12 392 Mich 231, 240 ; 220 NW2d 456 (1974

1916After reading the entire record, we are impressed with the wisdom of the rule frequently announced by this court and distinctly stated in Kinyon v. Cunningham, 146 Mich. 430 ( 109 N. W. 675 ), viz.: “To justify the reformation of a written contract upon the ground of mistake in drafting the same, the alleged mistake must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence, and the mistake must have been mutual and common to both parties to the contract.” Mrs. Rumley was examined as a witness for the complainant at the hearing.

1916After reading the entire record, we are impressed with the wisdom of the rule frequently announced by this court and distinctly stated in Kinyon v. Cunningham, 146 Mich. 430 ( 109 N. W. 675 ), viz.: “To justify the reformation of a written contract upon the ground of mistake in drafting the same, the alleged mistake must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence, and the mistake must have been mutual and common to both parties to the contract.” Mrs. Rumley was examined as a witness for the complainant at the hearing.

1899Every day’s experience evinces the wisdom of this rule.’ U. S. v. Wilson, Baldw. 10§.” In Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51 , there is an exhaustive collation of the authorities bearing upon this question.' The court was divided upon the right of the judge to instruct the jury upon the legal presumptions arising from a given state of facts.