Case Name: PEOPLE v. ELAUIM
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-09-25
Citations: 49 Mich. App. 559
Docket Number: Docket No. 13299
Parties: PEOPLE v ELAUIM
Judges: Before: Levin, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 49
Pages: 559–569

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v ELAUIM
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Evidence—Writing—Prior Inconsistent Statements — Ambiguity—Relevancy.
A trial court did not err in excluding a letter written by an eyewitness and offered by the defendant as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the witness where the letter was ambiguous and standing alone posed no contradiction to any of the witness’s testimony, the trial court gave defense counsel further opportunity to explain the letter and connect it to the testimony, and defense counsel refused to take the opportunity and failed to establish the relevancy of the letter.
Dissent by Levin, J.
2. Criminal Law — Evidence—Writings—Prior Inconsistent Statements — Offer to Testify Falsely — Witnesses—Credibility.
A letter written before the trial by an eyewitness called by the people in a criminal case for which a proper foundation had been laid in that the eyewitness had acknowledged the letter and signature and the critical names mentioned in the letter were identiñed and which either contradicted his trial testimony or was an offer to testify falsely was properly admissible as bearing on the credibility of the witness, and refusing to admit the letter in evidence was error.
3. Criminal Law — Evidence—Separate Crimes — Modus Operandi— Res Gestae.
The introduction into evidence by the prosecutor on direct examination of a witness called by the people of testimony regarding plans by the defendant to commit other crimes not charged was improper where there was no indication that the prosecutor was attempting to show modus operandi and the evidence was not part of the res gestae.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 771.
[2] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses §§ 771 et seq., 781.
[3] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 8, 9,182 et seq.
[4] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 753.
4. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Reasonable Doubt — Evidence — Sufficiency.
A reasonable doubt may arise from the lack, want, or insufficiency of the evidence for the state, and it was error for a trial judge to instruct the jury that a reasonable doubt may not be based on lack of evidence or the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Elvin L. Davenport, J.
Submitted Division 1 October 10, 1972, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 13299.)
Decided September 25, 1973.
Leave to appeal applied for.
James Elauim was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Norris J. Thomas, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant.
Before: Levin, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
V. J. Brennan, J.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery (MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548) and sentenced for the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Three eyewitnesses identified him as a participant in a robbery-mur der occurring at the American Auto Parts Store in Detroit, December 9, 1970.
His sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in excluding a letter offered by defendant to impeach one of the eyewitnesses. It was offered as a prior inconsistent statement and was identified and acknowledged by the witness. The text of the letter was ambiguous and standing alone posed no contradiction to any of the witness's prior testimony. The trial court gave defense counsel further opportunity to explain the letter and connect it to the testimony. This defense counsel refused to do. Defense counsel failed to establish the relevancy of the letter. On this basis the trial court's ruling to exclude the letter was not error.
Affirmed.
O'Hara, J., concurred.