In People v. Wolford, 189 Mich App 478, 479-480; 473 NW2d 767 (1991), the prosecutor presented evidence that the defendant was seen outside a trailer ten minutes before witnesses saw flames coming from the trailer, that although the defendant claimed that he called the fire department from a pay phone at a restaurant located near the trailer, records showed that no call was made from that pay phone, and that the day after the fire the defendant told his sister, in a joking manner, that he had burned the trailer. The Court concluded that "the prosecutor's evidence showed more than that defendant had the opportunity to commit arson. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecutor, a rational trier of fact could find that defendant, acting wilfully or maliciously, intentionally set the trailer on fire." Id. at 481. In Wolford, a prosecution witness, who had been served with a subpoena, failed to appear as scheduled at the start of trial. Wolford, supra at 482. Subsequent attempts to locate the witness were unsuccessful. Id. The trial court ruled that the prosecution's failure to produce the witness was excused given "that the prosecutor had exercised due diligence in attempting to produce" the witness. Id. The Wolford Court concluded that "unless the prosecutor seeks to delete a witness from his witness list as provided in MCL 767.40a(4); MSA 28.980(1)(4), we hold that the prosecutor is obliged to exercise due diligence to produce the witness." Id. at 484.