
    PEOPLE v HARRIS
    1. Statutes — Specific Statutes — General Statutes — Variances.
    A statute specific in its language and enacted subsequent to its more general counterpart controls should there be a variance.
    2. Evidence — Criminal Law — Handwriting Specimens — Post-Arrest Specimens — Statutes.
    The admission of handwriting specimens obtained after the arrest of the person giving the specimens is not prevented either by the statute governing proof of the signature or handwriting of any person as evidence in any case or by the statute governing the admission into evidence of handwriting specimens in criminal proceedings (MCLA 600.2144, 768.25; MSA 27A.2144, 28.1048).
    Appeal from Midland, James R. Rood, J.
    Submitted May 6, 1976, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 25594.)
    Decided June 15, 1976.
    Rose Marie Harris was charged with the oifense of receiving and concealing stolen property with a value of more than one hundred dollars. Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was granted. The people appeal by leave granted.
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Edward G. Durance, Prosecuting Attorney, and Gerald L. White, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Bower & Rogers, for defendant.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    
       73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 39, 199, 214-216.
    
       29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 806 et seq.
    
    
      Before: Quinn, P. J., and D. E. Holbrook and Beasley, JJ.
   Quinn, P. J.

On leave granted, the people appeal from an order suppressing defendant’s' handwriting specimens obtained after her arrest. Although the people raise four issues on appeal, only one of those issues is controverted. We address only the controverted issue which may be succinctly stated:

In a criminal case does MCLA 600.2144; MSA 27A.2144 prevent the admission in evidence of handwriting specimens obtained after the arrest of the person giving those specimens?

The trial judge said yes. We say no.

MCLA 600.2144; MSA 27A.2144 is the successor of 1915 CL 12539 and it is a general statute. MCLA 768.25; MSA 28.1048 was originally passed as part of 1927 PA 175. It is a later act and it specifically applies to criminal cases. The later, specific act controls, People v Rodgers, 18 Mich App 37; 170 NW2d 493 (1969).

MCLA 768.25; MSA 28.1048 governs admission of handwriting specimens in criminal proceedings, People v Jamerson, 14 Mich App 253; 165 NW2d 480 (1968). The fact that the specimens here involved were obtained after defendant’s arrest does not offend that statute.

Reversed and remanded.  