Defendant pled guilty to assaulting an employee of a place of confinement. MCL 750.197c; MSA 28.394(3). Defendant was sеntenced to from 32 to 48 months’ imprisonment and fined $2,000. Defendant appeals his sentence to this Court as of right.
Defеndant claims on appeal that the trial court erred by considering certain information in fashioning his sentenсe. Specifically defendant objects *751 to: (1) a hearsay statement of a social worker involved with thе case in the presentence report, (2) information in the presentence report about arrеsts which had not resulted in convictions, and (3) reference in the presentence report to information сontained in a criminal responsibility report prepared under MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1).
Information in a presentence rеport must include inquiry into a defendant’s antecedents, character and circumstances. The report must inсlude an evaluation of, and a prognosis for, a defendant’s adjustment to the community. The statute dealing with presentence reports also makes reference to the use of psychiatric information if it is available. MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144. The purpose of a presentence report is to give the trial court as much information as possible so that the sentence can be tailored to the circumstances of the individual defendant.
People v Burton,
Addressing defendant’s first objection about the hearsay statement by a social worker in the report, we note that the trial court, taking into account defendant’s сlaim of bias and inaccuracy, noted that he would consider the statement as opinion and not fact. This met the requirement of
*752
GCR 1963, 785.12 that the trial court note and resolve defendant’s objection. The court was apprised of and noted the defendant’s objection and resolved it on the record. Hearsay information may be properly included in a presentence report.
People v Books,
Defendant also claims that the presentence report should not have included information about arrests which had not resulted in convictions. Defense counsel did not object to the inclusion of the fact of arrest in the presentеnce report. Defendant only now raises this claim on appeal. The issue was thus not properly prеserved for review. Even if it had been, we note that the fact of an arrest may properly be included in a рresentence report.
People v Henry,
Defendant’s final contention is that the presentence report contained аn improper hearsay refer *753 ence to a criminal responsibility report prepared at the rеquest of counsel pursuant to MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1). These reports are prepared to assist counsel in deciding if an insanity defense should or can be presented. In the case at bar the report was prepared for an unrelated criminal charge. Defendant assaulted an employee of a place of confinement while awaiting trial on the unrelated charges. Defendant points to MCL 768.20a; MSA 28.1043(1), which, at that time, stated in pertinent part:
"(5) Statements made by the defendant to personnel of the center for forensic psychiatry or to аny independent examiner during an examination shall not be admissible or have probative value in court at thе trial of the case on any issues other than his mental illness or insanity at the time of the alleged offense.
"(8) The report of the center for forensic psychiatry or any other independent examiner may be admissible in еvidence upon the stipulation of the prosecution and defense.”
MCL 768.20a(5); MSA 28.1043(1X5) precludes use of the reрort at trial on any issue other than mental illness or insanity. We do not find that the statute precludes use of this report at sentencing if it is made available to the probation department. We reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, as noted above, proper sentencing, tailored to each individual defendant, requires a brоad inquiry into the defendant’s background. The report contains information which might be useful to the sentencing judge in fashioning an individualized sentence. Second, we note that MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144, the statute which controls presentence reports and investigations, states that psychiatric information shall accompany the commitment papers. This *754 indicates to us that the psychiatric information under consideration here could properly be offerеd to the sentencing court.
Our conclusion is that there were no errors in the presentence report which would require remand for resentencing. Defendant’s sentence is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.