Case Name: PEOPLE v. CAMEL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-04-25
Citations: 11 Mich. App. 219
Docket Number: Docket No. 3,621
Parties: PEOPLE v. CAMEL.
Judges: Levin, J., concurred with T. Gr. Kavanagh, J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 11
Pages: 219–225

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. CAMEL.
Opinion op the Court.
1. .Criminal Law — Evidence op Eormer Convictions — Admissi- ' BILITY.
Evidence of former convictions or offenses is not admissible except in cases in which such evidence is material or relevant to the ease being tried.
2. Same — Evidence—Eormer Conviction — Presence in Prison.
Testimony by a witness that he met the defendant in prison is inadmissible as evidence of a prior conviction.
3. Same — Evidence op Eormer Conviction — Mistrial.
-.Defendant’s motion for mistrial in prosecution for larceny in a building should have been granted where a prosecution witness testified that the defendant told him that he had just gotten out of prison, and this answer was or should have been expected by the prosecution because it had been given at a separate hearing to determine voluntariness of a statement made by defendant (CL 1948, § 750.360).
Same — Evidence—Particular Purpose — Instruction.
It is incumbent on the trial court to instruct the jury, whether , or not so requested, where evidence is admissible for a particular purpose that they may consider it only for that purpose.
References por Points in Headnotes
[1, 3, 5, 6] -29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 320 et seq.
[2] '29' Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 333.
[4] 29 Am Jur 2d,. Evidence § 263.
Dissenting Opinion.
Quinn, J.
5. Criminal Law — Evidence—Former Convictions.
The jury’s knowledge of defendant’s prior convictions does not result in a mistrial where this information was brought out unintentionally and inadvertently by prosecutor’s questioning of witness.
6. Same — Evidence—Former Convictions.
The jury’s knowledge of defendant’s prior conviction brought out by questions by prosecutor should not result in a mistrial absent a showing of prejudice or that the trial judge denied a motion to strike or that he refused to give requested corrective instructions.
Appeal from Ingham; Coash (Louis E.), J.
Submitted Division 2 December 7, 1967, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 3,621.)
Decided April 25, 1968.
Amos Camel, Jr., was convicted of larceny in a building. Defendant appeals..
Reversed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengosld, Solicitor General, Donald L. Reisig, Prosecuting Attorney and James L. Theophelis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
• Louis A. Smith, for defendant on appeal.

Opinion:
T. G. Kavanagh, J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of larceny in a building and was sentenced to 2 to 4 years in prison. He appeals claiming that the court below erred in denying his motion for mistrial during the course of the trial. Defendant's motion, was prompted by the following interrogation by the assistant prosecutor of a police officer called by him:
"Q. All right. Then do you recall the conversation that yon had after you advised him of his rights ?
"A. Yes, sir. I asked him his name and address and such, and then he stated that he had got out of Jackson prison."
Defendant immediately asked that the jury he excused and in their absence moved for a mistrial on the ground that the reference to his previous prison term constituted prejudicial error. We hold that the court erred in denying the motion for mistrial.
A similar situation was before the Supreme Court in People v. Greenway (1962), 365 Mich 547. There the people called a witness as a hostile witness for the prosecution and asked him where he had met the defendant. When he answered, "In the Arkansas prison", defense counsel moved for a mistrial which was denied. The Supreme Court reversed on the ground that evidence of former convictions or offenses is not admissible except in cases wherein such evidence is material or relevant to the ease being tried. The Court said (p 551):
"The answer by Carter, which the prosecution clearly anticipated or hoped for, was calculated to prejudice the minds of the jurors against the defendant."
The Court in Greenway based its conclusion of the prosecutor's forewarning on the fact that the witness had made a statement to the police and that the record disclosed that the prosecutor was familiar with that statement. The facts in the case at bar are even stronger. Not only did the defendant make a statement to the police, which included a statement of the fact that defendant had served time in Jackson prison, but in addition, the voluntariness of that statement was put in issue and a Walker hearing was held to resolve the question. At the hear ing in response to a question by the assistant prosecutor as to the substance of the statement, the police officer testified:
"He [defendant] stated that he had got. out of Jackson prison on the 20th — that would be April 22, 1966."
At the trial in chief the assistant prosecutor asked virtually the same question and received the same response. In our view it could only prejudice the defendant.
The people's position is not supported by People v. Fleish (1948), 321 Mich 443. In that case the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to the general rule that evidence of former convictions or offenses is inadmissible. However, in Fleish the Court held that testimony by a witness that he had met the defendant in prison was admissible for a specific purpose which was germane to the people's case (a prosecution for common-law conspiracy to murder), i.e., to show the relationship that a jury might infer existed between the alleged conspirators. No such specific purpose exists in the case at bar. Moreover, this Court has held that where such evidence is admissible for a particular purpose, it is incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury, whether or not so requested, that they may consider the testimony only for that particular purpose. People v. Askar (1967), 8 Mich App 95.
In view of the prior testimony at the Walker hearing, the objectionable response by this witness could have been anticipated. Since the trial judge is charged with the ultimate duty to control the proceedings before him, and since he as well as the prosecutor failed to protect the defendant, when the damage was done by this testimony the court should have granted the motion for mistrial.
Reversed.
Levin, J., concurred with T. Gr. Kavanagh, J.
CL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Kev § 28.592).
People v. Walker (On Rehearing, 1965), 374 Mich 331.
CL 1948, § 768.29 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1052),