Dеfendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder 1 and appeals as of right. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the prosеcutor to indorse two res gestae witnesses on the first day of trial.
On September 23, 1971, the day after the selection of the jury and the first scheduled day of trial, the prosecutor moved for permissiоn to indorse two res gestae witnesses. The crime had been committed on February 16, 1971. In asking the cоurt for permission to indorse these two witnesses *256 at so late a date, the prosecutor told the court that the reason for his tardiness was the fact that he had just learned the identity of the two witnesses that same morning.
Defense counsel timely objected to the motion to indorse these two witnesses. His stated reason for so objecting was mainly to avoid prejudicing the defendant’s present situation by showing the commission of another offense (both of these witnesses had testified аgainst the defendant in a murder trial in June, 1971). Defense counsel further argued that the prosecution hаd known the names of the two witnesses since February. No mention of surprise was made, however, and defendant did not ask for a continuance nor did he seek time to interview said witnesses.
It is settled thаt the prosecution must indorse on the information the names of all res gestae witnesses known at the time of filing. It is also true, however, that the names of additional witnesses may be indorsed before or during trial by leave of the court. 2
Thus, the late indorsement of witnesses is a matter within the trial judge’s discrеtion.
People v Cormandy,
The unique facts of this particular case lead us to believe thаt the prosecutor was less than diligent in this regard. The fact that these witnesses were known to a different assistant prosecutor than the one trying the instant case should not insulate the second prosecutor from the consequences of knowledge by another man in the office.
*257
Howеver, the use or abuse of a trial judge’s discretion should not be considered in a vacuum. When defеnse counsel was confronted by the prosecutor’s application for late indorsement, counsel’s main objection was to the effect that the two prospective witnesses would, of necessity, relate facts concerning defendant’s prior offense, prejudicing his chances in the present trial. The court, however, obviated this problem by instructing the proseсutor to confine his questioning of these two men to facts relevant to the instant offense. Other thаn mentioning the fact that the prosecution had the names of these two men since February, dеfense counsel made no mention of surprise or lack of preparation for crоss-examination. Furthermore, defendant neither moved for a continuance nor asked for time to interview these two witnesses. The failure to move for a continuance is strongly indicative of a lack of prejudice.
People v Powers,
Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to indorse two res gestae witnesses on the first day of trial.
Defendant next contends that the statement by the prosecutor in his final argument that the evidence wаs "uncontradicted” constituted an impermissible comment upon the fact that the defendant did not take the witness stand. This statement by the prosecutor, under Michigan law, does not constitute a comment upon the accused’s failure to testify.
People v Jacoboni,
Defendant further contends that the trial court committed several errors in its instructions to the jury. On appellate review, jury instructions must
*258
be read in their entirety.
People v Elkins,
By supplemental brief, defendant raises the issue that his juvenile record was considered in sentencing, contrary tо
People v McFarlin,
The record before us contains the bare statement, "I don’t see any juvenile record. You may have been to juvenile court but I don’t see it in here—oh, yes”. From this we are unable to state that defendant’s juvenile record played any part in the sentencing process. The cоurt was aware that defendant was serving a previous sentence for second-degree murder and relied on the report used at the time of sentence on that charge. Likewise, the existence of a pending charge for armed robbery was indicated only by a reference to when the matter would be tried, not that it was used in aggravation of sentence.
Timely raised was the issue of the length of sentence (8 to 10 years) under
People v Tanner,
Affirmed.