Case Name: PEOPLE v. PERCY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1983-07-07
Citations: 127 Mich. App. 1
Docket Number: Docket No. 60132
Parties: PEOPLE v PERCY
Judges: Before: R. M. Maher, P.J., and Bronson and Cynar, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 127
Pages: 1–13

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v PERCY
Docket No. 60132.
Submitted October 19, 1982, at Detroit.
Decided July 7, 1983.
Leave to appeal denied, 418 Mich 929.
James R. Percy was convicted of armed robbery by a jury in Recorder’s Court of Detroit and was sentenced to life imprisonment, John P. O’Brien, J. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion released on April 5, 1978. On March 25, 1981, defendant filed a delayed motion for new trial and a motion to vacate his sentence. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and denied defendant’s motions, John P. O’Brien, J. Defendant appealed by leave granted. Held:
1. Admission of testimony by police officers as to the complainant’s identification of defendant does not require reversal of defendant’s conviction.
2. Defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress evidence of defendant’s prior convictions did not deny defendant effective assistance of counsel.
References for Points in Headnotes
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 373.
Admissibility of evidence as to extrajudicial or pretrial identification of accused. 71 ALR2d 449.
21A Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 752, 984-987.
Modern status of rules and standards in state courts as to adequacy of defense counsel’s representation of criminal client. 2 ALR4th 27.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 327.
Admissibility, under Rule 404(b) of Federal Rules of Evidence, of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts not similar to offense charged. 41 ALR Fed 497.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545 et seq.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 613, 925.
21A Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 751, 986.
Adequacy of defense counsel’s representation of criminal client regarding appellate and postconviction remedies. 15 ALR4th 582, superseding in part 74 ALR2d 1390.
Adequacy of defense counsel’s representation of criminal client regarding post-plea remedies. 13 ALR4th 533.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 776.
3. The trial court’s allowance of the prosecutor’s ill-advised remarks in his closing arguments bolstering the credibility of the complainant was not so offensive as to require reversal.
4. Defendant’s contention that the trial court gave a jury instruction to the effect that the defendant’s failure to testify could be used as evidence of guilt is rejected.
5. Defendant’s contention that his sentence was improperly based on erroneous information is rejected.
6. Defendant has had a new appeal. Therefore, he has already received the proper remedy for his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on his first appeal.
Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.
R. M. Maher, P.J., concurred in part and dissented in part. He would hold that it was error for the trial court to allow the police officer witnesses to testify as to the complainant’s words and assertive conduct in identifying the defendant. Furthermore, he finds that, although the allowance by the trial court of that testimony was, in itself, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the allowance of the actions of the prosecutor in his references to the testimony taken in conjunction with the allowance of the testimony was so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial system as to require reversal. He would reverse defendant’s conviction and order him a new trial on the basis of this issue alone. He agrees that defendant’s remaining issues are without merit.
Opinion op the Court
1. Evidence — Criminal Identification — Third-Party Testimony.
The admission of third-party testimony concerning an identification by a complainant is not an error so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial system that it can never be considered harmless.
2. Criminal Law — Assistance of Counsel — Mistake of Counsel.
Michigan courts apply a two-part test in analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim: first, the court assesses defense counsel’s performance in light of the standard that defense counsel must perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law and must conscientiously protect his client’s interest, undeflected by conflicting considerations; second, the court considers whether defense counsel made a "serious mistake” and, if so, whether but for this mistake defendant would have had a reasonably likely chance of acquittal.
3. Criminal Law — Evidence — Impeachment — Prior Convictions.
The admission of evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes is left to the discretion of the trial court; in exercising its discretion, the trial court must balance the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect.
4. Criminal Law — Prosecutorial Comment — Preserving Question.
Appellate review of a prosecutor’s closing argument is precluded in the absence of objection unless failure to consider the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice.
5. Appeal — Jury Instructions — Ambiguous Instructions.
Ambiguity in the language of a trial court’s jury instructions may be resolved by reading the instructions as a whole.
6. Appeal — Assistance of Counsel — New Appeal.
The proper remedy, upon a finding of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, is to grant a new appeal.
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by R. M. Maher, P.J.
7. Criminal Law — Evidence — Criminal Identification — Witnesses — Hearsay.
Prior to the effective date of the Michigan Rules of Evidence one witness could testify only as to the circumstances surrounding the identification of the defendant by another witness; testimony as to the nature and quality of the identification was considered inadmissible hearsay.
8. Appeal — Harmless Error.
A two-part test is employed to determine whether an error was harmless: (1) was the error so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial system as to require reversal, and (2) if not, was the error harrñless beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, had the trial been free of the error, is it not reasonably possible that any juror would have voted to acquit.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Dep uty Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Carolyn Schmidt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gary Granader, for defendant.
Before: R. M. Maher, P.J., and Bronson and Cynar, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant, tried before a jury in 1976, was convicted of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished per curiam opinion. On March 25, 1981, defendant filed a delayed motion for a new trial and a motion to vacate his sentence. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 12, 1981, regarding defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied defendant's motions. Subsequently, this Court granted defendant's application for leave to appeal.
Defendant raises several issues on appeal, none of which require reversal.
We agree with Judge Maher's result regarding all of the issues in this case except one. We cannot agree that the admission of third-party testimony concerning an identification by a complainant is an error so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial system that it can never be considered harmless. The testimony of the third-party witnesses concerning the prior identification by the complainant constitutes harmless error in this case. The complainant was positive in his identification of defendant. Testimony which repeated the fact of identification was cumulative. See People v Gwinn, 111 Mich App 223, 246, 258; 314 NW2d 562 (1981); People v Price, 112 Mich App 791, 803; 317 NW2d 249 (1982), lv den 414 Mich 946 (1982); People v Turner, 116 Mich App 421, 424; 323 NW2d 425 (1982).
Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
People v Percy, (Docket No. 30260, decided April 5, 1978).