Case Name: PEOPLE v. McGEE
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-05-21
Citations: 90 Mich. App. 115
Docket Number: Docket No. 30165
Parties: PEOPLE v McGEE
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and Allen and Mackenzie, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 90
Pages: 115–119

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v McGEE
Docket No. 30165.
Submitted March 7, 1979, at Grand Rapids.
Decided May 21, 1979.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Defendant, Harry W. McGee, was convicted of felony-murder in Kalamazoo Circuit Court, Raymond W. Fox, J. At trial a prosecution witness on direct examination testified to having first met defendant in jail. Defendant requested a mistrial, which was denied. Defendant appeals. Held:
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s request for a mistrial and the fact that defendant later testified is immaterial.
Reversed.
Allen, J., dissented. He would hold that, under the circumstances, any error committed was not so prejudicial as to require reversal.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Evidence — Prior Criminal Conduct.
It was reversible error for a trial judge in a felony-murder trial to deny a defense motion for a mistrial where the prosecutor elicited from his own witness the fact that the witness and the defendant had first met in jail, where the fact was not germane to the prosecution, where there was no claim of conspiracy and where the defendant had not yet testified; the fact that the defendant eventually did testify is immaterial.
Dissent by Allen, J.
2. Criminal Law — New Trial — Abuse of Discretion — Witnesses — Defendant’s Past Incarceration.
It was not an abuse of a trial court’s discretion to deny a defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon testimony, elicited during direct examination of a prosecution witness, alluding to the defendant’s past incarceration where the prosecutor neither hoped for nor anticipated the elicitation of prejudicial testimony from his line of questioning of the witness and where there is an absence of a persuasive showing of prejudice.
References for Points in Headnotes
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 269.
4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 541.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 127.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James J. Gregart, Prosecuting Attorney, and Stephen M. Wheeler, Chief of Appellate Division, for the people.
Thomas J. Hirsch, for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and Allen and Mackenzie, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P.J.
Defendant appeals his jury-based conviction of felony-murder, murder during the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate a robbery, contrary to MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
Prior to defendant's decision to testify, the prosecutor questioned a witness as follows:
"Q Now, did you know [defendant] prior to seeing him [in jail after his arrest]?
"A I have met him before in 1971 in the County Jail, also [sic], "
The prosecutor should have anticipated the answer to his question and that a response would inform the jury of defendant's prior conviction. It was his witness.
The fact of defendant and the witness having met once earlier in jail was in no way germane to the prosecution. There was no claim of conspiracy and, since defendant had not yet testified, his previous imprisonment was not admissible as bearing on credibility. That he did eventually take the witness stand is of no moment. He may have refrained from testifying but for the compulsion of this disclosure. Defendant's request for a mistrial should have been granted. People v Greenway, 365 Mich 547; 114 NW2d 188 (1962).
Reversed.
Mackenzie, J., concurred.