
    PEOPLE v. COLLETT.
    1. Criminal Law — Driving Vehicle Under Influence of Intoxicating Liquor — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Claim by defendant, convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction held, without merit, where a review of the reeord shows that 10 witnesses testified for the people and that there was ample testimony, from just 2 of the witnesses, to sustain the conviction (CLS 1961, § 257.625).
    2. Same — Driving While Under Influence of Intoxicating Liquor —Blood Tests.
    Statute providing for chemieal test to determine intoxication of persons charged with driving a motor vehicle under influence of intoxicating liquor held, not to require police officers to advise an accused that he has a right to a blood test, where the statute, as originally enacted, contained such a requirement, but was subsequently amended so as to delete it (CLS 1961, § 257.625a, as amended by PA 1964, No 104).
    Deferences for Points in Headnotes
    [1, 2] 7 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic §§ 330-334.
    Driving automobile while intoxicated as a substantive criminal offense. 42 ALB 1498, s, 49 ALB 1392, 68 ALB 1356, 142 ALB 555,
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit; Kirwau (John R.), J.
    Submitted Division 1 April 7, 1967, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 2,649.)
    Decided November 28, 1967.
    Jack Collett was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. DerengosJci, Solicitor General, Samuel II. Olsen, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Richard J. Padsieski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Tauber & Garon, for defendant.
   J. H. Gjllis, J.

On April 2, 1966, the defendant, Jack Collett, was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant was taken to police headquarters where he was given a breathalyzer test by a police officer. During the nonjury trial the court ruled that the results of the test were inadmissible because the defendant had not been advised that he had a right to refuse to take the test. Ten witnesses testified for the prosecution. The court found the defendant guilty on the basis of the testimony of several witnesses who had observed the defendant.

Defendant on appeal raises two issues for our consideration. He first contends that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to warrant a determination that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have examined the transcript of testimony of each of the witnesses produced at trial and conclude that based on the testimony of just the first and last witnesses, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, if such testimony were believed by the trial court.

The second issue raised by appellant is that PA 1949, No 300, § 625a, as added by PA 1960, No 148 (CLS 1961, § 257.625a, and amended by PA 1964, No 104 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 9.2325 [1]) imposes a duty upon the police to advise one accused of driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor that he has a right to a blood test.

We hold that there is no requirement that the accused he advised that he has a right to a blood test for the reasons set forth in People v. Church (1966), 5 Mich App 303; People v. Kerrigan (1967), 8 Mich App 216; and People v. Alford (1967), 8 Mich App 211.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred. 
      
       0LS 1961, § 257.685 (Stat Ann 186Q Bey § 9,2325).
     