Dеfendant was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter, contrary to MCLA 750.321; MSA 28.553, for which he was sentеnced to a term of 10 to 15 years. He now appeals as of right.
During the late evening hоurs of August 11 or early morning hours of August 12, 1975, defendant beat Tonia Brummitt, age two years, about the head. Tonia lapsed into a coma and was subsequently placed on a respirator. Electroencephalograms were taken August 16 and 17, 1975, both of which indicated brain death. Tonia also lacked spontaneous and reflex activity. As a result the respiratоr was turned off August 18, 1975, and Tonia was pronounced dead an hour and fifteen minutes later. A pathologist testified that the cause of death was severe brain damage.
Defendant сhallenges as unconstitutional MCLA 326.8(b); MSA 14.228(2), which provides that, where a person’s respiratory аnd circulatory functions are maintained by artificial means of support, that persоn will be considered dead where there is irreversible cessation of spontaneous brain function. Defendant argues that this criterion is so vague or so insufficiently rigorous a critеrion of death that the respirator attached to Tonia Brummitt may have been prematurely terminated, causing her death.
Defendant does not have standing to challengе this statute. First, defendant has no personal interest in the constitutionality of the statute, sincе, even if the statute were found unconstitutional, defendant’s conviction would stand. There was ample evidence from which the jury could find defendant caused Tonia Brummitt’s death. From the record it is clear Tonia Brummitt was dead before the respirator was turned off. But evеn if
*373
the respirator was stopped prematurely, defendant would still be liable, since intеrvening medical error is not a defense to a defendant who has inflicted a mortal wоund upon another.
People v Cook,
Defendant’s argument that the trial court
sua sponte
should have instructed the jury that death must be pronounced before artificial life support is terminated, MCLA 326.8(b)(2); MSA 14.228(2)(2), is also without merit, since the time at which death is pronounced, either before or after thе life support system is terminated, is not material to defendant’s guilt. As noted, even if there was intervening medical error, defendant is not exculpated.
People v Cook, supra, People v Flenon, supra.
Nor need the trial court havе required, on its own initiative, that the medical experts provide the factual basis for thеir opinions prior to giving them, or validate the accuracy of the electroеn
*374
cephalograph upon which the opinion of death was partially based. That is properly a matter left for cross-examination. GCR 1963, 605,
People v John Willie Williams,
Defendant testified that his wife told him, whilе he was in jail, that she hit Tonia Brummitt after defendant beat the child, but before the policе arrived. As circumstantial evidence of his wife’s supposed guilty conscience, defеndant introduced evidence that she continued to visit him at the jail for some time after her daughter died, but finally stopped, giving a frivolous excuse. Defendant argues that the trial court improperly excluded this circumstantial evidence. The record reveals that, although the trial court felt the evidence irrelevant, immaterial, and too remote, the above evidence was in fact admitted and not limited. The only thing excluded by the limiting instruction was the excuse itself; that the front license tag had been stolen from her car. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the excuse was irrelevant, immaterial and too remote to be probative of defendant’s guilt or innocence. See
People v Howard,
Defendаnt also attempted to introduce the same evidence, the excuse given by his wife fоr not visiting him, by means of double hearsay. The trial court properly excluded the jailer’s stаtement of what defendant said his wife said during a telephone conversation, in which the jаiler overheard only defendant’s side of the conversation. What was irrelevant, immaterial and too remote when testified to by defendant does not become more
*375
probative when recounted secondhand. Further, a self-serving hearsay statement corroborating a defendant’s testimony is not admissible under any hearsay exception.
People v Hallaway,
Affirmed.