This аppeal presents issues for consideration by this Court which are novel, but like an embryo, not completely formed.
In the first instance we are met with what has been called a form of “appellate insulation” by the fаct that no objections to the alleged errors were made by defense counsel during the course of thе trial and consequently the matters before us are first raised on appeal. It is, of course, the generаl rule in this State that counsel may not sit idly by
*463
during the trial and then for the first time interpose objections after the acсused has been convicted.
People
v.
Martin
(1965),
However, exercising the prerogative of searching for error which reflеcts clear injustice, although no objection was made at the trial, we will proceed to examine thе matters before us.
The defendant, Grady Hicks, was prosecuted under CLS 1961, § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28-.788), charging him with carnal knowledge of a female minor and was tried on January 13, 1965, represented by counsel and before a jury. Since both appеllant and appellee agree upon the statement of questions involved, we set them forth herewith:
Statement oe Questions Involved
1. Did the trial prosecutor invade defendant’s constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses by asserting personal knowledge of alleged facts prejudicial to defendant?
A. By asserting such facts when cross-examining defendant.
B. By asserting such facts in his rebuttal argument.
C. By putting words into the mouth of complainаnt in asking her leading questions.
The lower court in effect answered “No”.
Appellant contends the answer should he “Yes”.
2. Should attorney’s failure at the trial to make objections to errors prejudicial tо defendant preclude consideration thereof by appellate court to insure against injustice?
This question arises after trial.
Appellant contends the answer should he “No”.
*464 Specifically, appellant objects to the following quoted so-called “testimony” of the trial prosecutor:
“Q. Then you turned off the expressway at Bellevillе road? You know, to up like this and down? (Apparently motioning with his hands.)
“A. No, I didn’t.
“Q. How did you get off it?
“A. They got accesses off there where you can go across there. They’re building the roads.
“After a few more questions and answers, the trial prosecutor told defendant he did not want to confuse him. The trial prosecutor then testified as follows:
“ ‘I’m a resident of this town (Bellеville) and I’m acquainted with it.’
“Soon the cross-examination came back to the same matter.
“Q. Now I ask you once again, sir, if you are traveling west on the expressway going toward Ann Arbоr, how do you get off the expressway to go to her (Mrs. Gimmick’s) house? Do you turn off left?
“A. Turn left.
“Q. Left. Now, in turning left off the expressway do you come off on the exit and then turn and go over the expressway?
“A. No.
“Q. You mean you just cut across the expressway left?
“A. Right.
“These above set forth questions and answers paved the way for the trial prosecutor to again testify. In his rebuttal arguments to the jury he reflects on defendant’s claim that he cut across the expressway to the left. He then testifies:
“ ‘I’ve driven it many times; I know something about the exits. I don’t know about this one.’ ”
It is difficult from these excerpts to say that there was any prejudicial attack on defеndant’s rights. Indeed, it appears that this does not go beyond a routine cross-examination of the defendant.
*465 Likewise, defendant states that the prosecutor, in his argument, again violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by the following remarks:
“Then he says, ‘From 9:20 maybe a little later because it took me some time to get out there, I was at Mrs. Gimmick’s out there fishing.’ But that time’s not even accounted for.
“If Mrs. Gimmick said, ‘Yes, he came out there about 11 o’clоck and stayed till 4:30,’ then he would-n’t even be available for the first act of intercourse at 2 p.m., would he? But no Mrs. Gimmick.
“He goes out the expressway, busy expressway, and just turns left, goes to Mrs. Gimmick’s but he doesn’t know her address. I’m sure some of you drive the expressway; I’ve driven it many times; I know something about the exits. I don’t know about this one. He couldn’t help us toо much.
“And then what happens? I go into the details and everybody can tell us everything that he did on these two days in questiоn but not much about what happened the day before this stuff began. I asked him how could he remember these things so well and not the other day: ‘Well, because these are days I’m suppose to have done it.’ These are the days he’s suppose to have done it. But his memory can’t tell us what he did the day before.”
Here again we find nothing to suggest that the prosecutor made any observation which he did not have a right to make, or which was prejudiсial to the defendant in any way.
Finally, appellant charges that “words were put into the mouth” of complаinant by asking her leading questions.
There has probably never been a prosecution under the instant statute in which thе complainant was not somewhat reluctant to describe in detail the entire transaction, including relevant portions of her anatomy and that of the defendant. Couple this *466 with the fact that complainant was 15 years of age and it is difficult to see how any prosecutor could properly lay the elements of the crime charged before a jury without requesting the complainant to delineate in some detail the circumstanсes that led to the prosecution. While specific details of the event were elicited, we find that the quеstions which produced them should not be classified as leading questions, tortuous though they may be.
It is within the discretion of the trial court to allow considerable latitude in asking leading questions of young girls who are witnesses for the State.
People
v.
Kratz
(1925),
In retrospect, we are constrained to say that had objection been raised timely during the trial, as it was nоt, this holding would not have been changed one iota. The jury heard the witnesses, evaluated their credibility based on the testimony offered, and the verdict should not be disturbed.
Affirmed.