
    PEOPLE v. GLESSNER
    1. Rape — Evidence—Offenses op Accomplice — Admissibility—Objections.
    A complaint and.warrant charging defendant’s accomplice with contributing to the delinquency of a minor by permitting that minor to have sexual intercourse with the defendant was properly admitted at defendant’s trial for statutory rape, where defense counsel did not objeet -to their admission (MCLA § 750.520).
    2. Criminal Law — Trial—Statements of Counsel — Arguments of Counsel — Objections.
    A prosecutor’s prejudicial remarks during trial and in Ms final argument could not be objected to on appeal where no defense objection was made to those statements during trial.
    3. Appeal, and Error — Preserving Question — Clear Injustice.
    Trial errors which are raised for the first time on appeal must refleet a “clear injustice” which would merit an appellate review despite the absence of objection to those errors at trial.
    References for Points' in Headnotes
    [1] 44 Am’Jur, Rape §135.
    21 Am Jur 2d; Criminal Raw § 115 et seq.
    
    [2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 624, 625.
    [3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error '§ 545 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Kent, Claude Vander Ploeg, J.
    Submitted Division 3 June 4, 1969, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 5,322.)
    Decided October 27, 1969.
    Jobn Glessner was convicted by a jury of statutory rape.' Defendant' appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James K. Miller, Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert J. Stephan and Jack A. Winter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.
    
      Victor H. Bergstrom, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and R. B. Burns and V. J. Brennan, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

. Defendant John Glessner was convicted by a jury on October 27, 1966 of statutory rape. His appeal was submitted on briefs.

On- appeal defendant poses as an issue that the confession of an accomplice should not have been received into evidence. The record shows that it was not admitted nor was any portion of it revealed to thé jtiry, therefore that question is moot.

Defendant’s, main argument is directed to the admission into evidence of a complaint and warrant charging the accomplice with contributing to the delinquency of a minor by permitting the complainailt tcChave sexual interco-ursé with the defendant. The record shows, however, that defendant’s counsel stated at the time that he did not have any objection to the admission of the complaint and warrant. Consequently, the defendant cannot base a claim of error-on this ground. People v. Simon (1928), 243 Mich 489; People v. Dombrowski (1968), 10 Mich App 445.

Further, defendant contends that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during the trial and in his final argument were prejudicial.- -The record shows that these remarks of the prosecutor were made without any objection by defense counsel, and therefore this alleged ground is also inoperative. People v. Hider (1968), 12 Mich App 526. Having read the record, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s allegations of error, as above mentioned, do not reflect a “clear injustice” which merits review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection. See People v. Ridley (1967), 8 Mich App 549.

Affirmed. 
      
       MCLA § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788).
     