Case ID: mich-app_82/html/0719-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v BLAIR
    Docket No. 29055.
    Submitted February 8, 1978, at Lansing.
    Decided April 18,1978.
    Robert J. Blair was convicted of statutory rape in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, Edward D. Deake, J. Defendant appeals, contending among other things that the prosecutor committed prejudicial error by asking various defense witnesses if they believed in God. Held:
    
    Such questioning, absent any corrective action by the trial judge, constitutes reversible error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Witnesses — Criminal Law — Prosecutor’s Questions — Belief in God —Appeal and Error.
    Questioning of witnesses by a prosecutor regarding whether the witnesses or the defendant were "religious” or "God-fearing” constitutes reversible error where no action is taken by the trial judge to correct the improper questions.
    References for Points in Headnote
    81 Am Jur 2d, Witnesses §§ 87, 533.
    Propriety and prejudicial effect of impeaching witness by reference to religious belief or lack of it. 76 ALR3d 539.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William F. Delhey, Prosecuting Attorney, John J. Hensel, Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and Elizabeth Osgood Pollard, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      George W. Parker, for defendant on appeal.
    Before: N. J. Kaufman, P. J., and D. E. Holbrook, Jr. and D. F. Walsh, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of statutory rape. MCLA 750.520; MSA 28.788. Thereafter sentenced to a prison term of not less than 10 nor more than 20 years, defendant appeals as of right.

While defendant raises numerous issues on appeal one is dispositive and mandates reversal.

During the course of the trial the prosecutor asked: (1) defendant’s wife if she was a "God fearing woman”; (2) defendant’s sister if the defendant was a "religious man”; and (3) defendant’s mother if defendant was a "God fearing man”.

Questions such as the above are of the nature condemned and held to be reversible error in People v Hall, 391 Mich 175; 215 NW2d 166 (1974), and People v Bouchee, 400 Mich 253; 253 NW2d 626 (1977). Nor can defendant’s conviction be saved by People v Burton, 401 Mich 415, 418; 258 NW2d 58 (1977), where swift action on the part of the trial judge cured any error. Unlike Burton, supra, nothing was done by the trial judge, in the instant case, to correct the obviously improper questions by the prosecutor.

Resolution of the foregoing issue being dispositive, discussion of defendant’s remaining allegations of error is rendered unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.