People v. Glessner
172 N.W.2d 861
Mich. Ct. App.
1969
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

. Defendant John Glessner was convicted by a jury on October 27, 1966 of statutory rape. * His appeal was submitted on briefs.

On- appeal defendant poses as an issue that the confession of an accomplice should not have been received into evidence. The record shows that it was not admitted nor was any portion of it revealed to thé jtiry, therefore that question is moot.

Defendant’s, main argument is directed to the admission into evidence of a complaint and warrant charging the accomplice with contributing to the delinquency of a minor by permitting the complainailt tcChave sexual interco-ursé with the defendant. The record shows, however, that defendant’s counsel stated at the time that he did not have any objection to the admission of the complaint and warrant. Consequently, the defendant cannot base a claim of error-on this ground. People v. Simon (1928), 243 Mich 489; People v. Dombrowski (1968), 10 Mich App 445.

Further, defendant contends that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during the trial and in his final argument were prejudicial.- -The record shows that these remarks of the prosecutor were made without any objection by defense counsel, and there *537 fore this alleged ground is also inoperative. People v. Hider (1968), 12 Mich App 526. Having read the record, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s allegations of error, as above mentioned, do not reflect a “clear injustice” which merits review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection. See People v. Ridley (1967), 8 Mich App 549.

Affirmed.

Notes

*

MCLA § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788).