Case Name: PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-10-21
Citations: 13 Mich. App. 598
Docket Number: Docket No. 3,818
Parties: PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS.
Judges: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vander Wal, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 13
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS.
Criminal Law — Witnesses—Cross-Examination—Relationship op Witness to Dependant.
Trial court’s refusal of defendant’s motion for mistrial after elicitation by ' prosecutor,' during cross-examination of a defense witness, of information that defendant charged with robbery armed was the father of the witness’s illegitimate .child held, not an abuse of discretion or sufficient to support a claim of reversible error, because the relationship of the witness and defendant is relevant to the weight and credibility to be afforded her testimony.
Referen ce por Points in Headnote
58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 706.
Appeal from Genesee, Freeman (Donald it.), J.
Submitted Division 2 October 9, 1968, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 3,818.)
Decided October 21, 1968.
Eddie Williams was convicted of robbery armed. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Kuebler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
William Goldberg, for defendant on appeal.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
Defendant's jury trial on a charge of armed robbery resulted in bis conviction. On appeal, defendant requests tbat bis conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered. During cross-examination of defendant's alibi witness, the witness testified that defendant was the father of her illegitimate child. Defendant objected and moved for a mistrial, which motion was denied.
The relationship of a witness with a defendant is relevant and pertinent to the weight and credibility to be afforded the testimony of the witness. The fact that the relationship reflects unfavorably on defendant is not sufficient basis for us to say the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for new trial, nor does it support defendant's claim of reversible error. People v. MacCullough (1937), 281 Mich 15.
Affirmed.
Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vander Wal, JJ., concurred.