Case Name: PEOPLE v. UNGUREAN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-07-23
Citations: 35 Mich. App. 143
Docket Number: Docket No. 9037
Parties: PEOPLE v. UNGUREAN
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 35
Pages: 143–148

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. UNGUREAN
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Defendant Testifying — Impeachment—Prior Convictions — Prior Sentence.
A defendant’s prior conviction may be shown for the purpose of testing his credibility; however, a defendant’s prior sentence may not be shown.
2. Criminal Law — Defendant’s Prior Sentence — Length of Sentence — Admissibility—Reversible Error.
The introduction in a criminal trial of the length of a defendant’s prior sentence is reversible error.
3. Criminal Law — Evidence—Other Offenses — Admissibility.
Evidence of other distinct offenses, as a general rule, is not admissible even though the other offenses are of the same hind of offense as the one charged.
Dissent by Gillis, J.
4. Criminal Law — Prior Sentence — Prosecutor’s Comments— Defendant Testifying.
A prosecutor’s showing defendant’s prior sentence does not substantially prejudice the defendant and does not constitute reversible error where the defendant takes the stand and thus subjects his credibility to impeachment, because a jury, knowing of the defendant’s conviction, could justifiably presume that the defendant has been punished accordingly.
5. Criminal Law — Evidence—Other Offenses.
Prosecutor’s reference in defendant’s trial for uttering and publishing a forged check to three other forged checks did not constitute error where the subject of the other checks was first brought up by defense counsel.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-4] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses §§ 734, 746, 747-750.
[5] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses §§ 788, 789.
Appeal from Calhoun, Ronald M. Ryan, J.
Submitted Division 3 June 11, 1971, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 9037.)
Decided July 23, 1971.
Florian Ungurean was convicted of uttering and publishing a forged check. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, John M. Jereck, Prosecuting Attorney, and Noel G. Petersen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Richard T. Greene, for defendant on appeal.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Fitzgerald and J. H. Gillis, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P. J.
Defendant was convicted of uttering and publishing a forged check. MCLA § 750.249 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446).
On appeal defendant claims four points of error, of which only two will be discussed.
1. Defendant claims it was error for the prosecution to ask him if he had been sentenced to prison for 1-1/2 to 5 years for a similar offense.
2. Defendant claims it was error for the prosecution to ask questions pertaining to three other checks which were not introduced into evidence.
In People v. Nelson White (1970), 26 Mich App 35, this Court when faced with the issue of introducing sentence and sentence time into evidence ruled:
"While we must adhere to the rule that prior convictions are admissible for testing credibility, we see no reason to enlarge the rule to include prior sentences.
"The introduction of the length of defendant's prior sentence was reversible error." (pp 39, 40)
The prosecutor's question and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom according to the Nelson White case, "may have influenced the jury and denied the defendant the constitutional guarantee of a fair and impartial trial".
As a general rule evidence of other distinct offenses is not admissible even though they are of the same kind of offense as the one charged. People v. Schweitzer (1871), 23 Mich 301; People v. Askar (1967), 8 Mich App 95; People v. Heiss (1971) 30 Mich App 126.
The people claimed at trial, and the trial judge sustained their claim, that the defense had opened the door to such questions by asking Detective Kennedy questions on cross-examination about the other three checks.
The defense did ask Detective Kennedy questions concerning the- three checks but as stated in People v. Eddington (1970), 23 Mich App 210, 231:
"A slight opening of the door by the defense should not permit the prosecution to swing it totally ajar."
As the case will be remanded for a new trial it is suggested that both the people and the defendant refrain from questions concerning the three checks not introduced into evidence.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Fitzgerald, J., concurred.