Case Name: PEOPLE v. TERRY MOORE; PEOPLE v. McFARLAND
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1974-10-07
Citations: 55 Mich. App. 678
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 16298, 16945
Parties: PEOPLE v TERRY MOORE PEOPLE v McFARLAND
Judges: Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and R. B. Burns and R. L. Smith, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 55
Pages: 678–683

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v TERRY MOORE PEOPLE v McFARLAND
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Arrest—Right to Remain Silent.
The use against a defendant at trial of his exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent at the time of arrest constitutes prejudicial error.
Dissent by V. J. Brennan, P. J.
2. Witnesses — Defendants—Cross-Examination—Direct Examination — Evidence—Admissibility.
A prosecutor has the right to cross-examine a defendant in those areas covered on direct examination, even though the testimony may not otherwise have been admissible.
3. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Arrest—Right to Remain Silent — Witnesses—Defendants—Impeachment.
The use against a defendant at trial of his exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent at the time of arrest constitutes prejudicial error only where the defendant has made no allegations on direct examination as to what was said or not said at the time of arrest.
4. Burglary — Evidence—Demonstration—Admissibility.
A prosecutor’s demonstration of how a door was opened, in a trial for breaking and entering, is admissible as part of the explanation of his theory of entry.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 3] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 638 et seq.
[2] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses §§ 627, 629.
[4] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 61.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 362.
Requiring defendant in criminal case to exhibit self, or perform physical acts, during trial and in presence of jury. 171 ALR 1144.
Appeal from Wayne, Michael L. Stacey, J.
Submitted Division 1 May 5, 1974, at Detroit.
(Docket Nos. 16298, 16945.)
Decided October 7, 1974.
Terry L. Moore and Dennis N. McFarland were convicted of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny. Defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Patricia J. Boyle, Principal Attorney, Research, Training and Appeals, and Thomas Khalil, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Colista & Baum, for defendant Moore.
Ingle & Burke, for defendant McFarland.
Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and R. B. Burns and R. L. Smith, JJ.
Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const Í963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, J.
Defendants were tried and convicted,, jointly, of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny. MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305.
They appeal and we reverse.
The prosecutor, while cross-examining defendant McFarland, adduced the following testimony:
"Q. Were you arrested for breaking and entering?
"A. The sergeant said, 'these are the boys that did the breaking and entering and you're under arrest'.
"Q. What did you say?
"A. Nothing.
"Q. Nothing?
"A. I was flabbergasted.
"Q. Did you ever tell the police about Earl?
'A. What do you mean, sir, about Earl?
"Q. Did you ever mention Earl to the police?
"A. I never had a chance. I went directly to the police station.
"Q. Did the police officer talk to you at the police station?
'A. Yes.
"Q. What did you tell him?
"A. He started asking if I was a heroin addict.
"Q. What did you tell him?
"A. After they were talking to me about the heroin, they said I had the right to be quiet and to get an attorney. I said I guess I should.
"Q. You didn't tell them anything else?
'A. Outside of my name and stuff. I mean — I was trying to cooperate.
"Q. Did you tell them about a broken windshield?
"A. No, I didn't.
"Q. Did you tell them about a fight?
'A. No, I did not.
"Q. Were you perspiring or a little sweaty when the police arrested you, if you remember?
'A. I imagine I was. I'd walked quite far."
We think this testimony is the exact type of testimony prohibited in People v Bobo, 390 Mich 355; 212 NW2d 190 (1973).
Also, the trial court should not have allowed the prosecutor to conduct the irrelevant demonstration of opening a door with a credit card.
In addition, when instructing the jury, the trial court should keep in mind the distinction between inferring intent from an unlawful act and presuming intent from an unlawful act.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
R. L. Smith, J., concurred.