Court Opinion

ID: 9670977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:29:07.265871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.549094
License: Public Domain

Beasley, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I agree that the prosecutor’s questioning of the defendant on cross-examination concerning whether the federal firearm violation was the result "of a matter” on July 14, 1979, was an improper, attempted interjection of evidence of a prior arrest into the trial.
If an objection had been made, the trial court would have been obliged to sustain the objection. Ordinarily, where no objection is made, any error in asking a question is deemed waived and not preserved for review on appeal.1
The majority would assign error to the asking of the question, even though defense counsel did not object and even though defendant answered the question in the negative. Under these circumstances, I would not be inclined to find that the asking of this question constituted reversible error. Every error, no matter how trifling or how insignificant, is not an occasion for reversal and retrial.
Furthermore, approval by the majority of the *584trial court’s exercise of discretion in permitting inquiry regarding defendant’s 1976 federal guilty plea to illegal possession of a firearm by a prior felony offender would seem to reduce further any possible prejudicial impact of the prosecutor’s question.
I conclude that the error in asking this question was either not preserved for review on appeal because of failure to object or was of such a trifling nature as to fall within the classification of harmless error. Thus, I vote to affirm.2

 People v Champion, 97 Mich App 25, 31; 293 NW2d 715 (1980), rev’d on other grounds 411 Mich 468; 307 NW2d 681 (1981).

 The jury conviction of codefendant, Lloyd George Zimmerman, was affirmed in an unpublished opinion released November 20, 1981, under Docket No. 52338.