Court Opinion

ID: 9543923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:32.273963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:30.376768
License: Public Domain

D. C. Riley, J.
(concurring). I write separately solely to express my conception of the disclosure *434rules in regard to promises made to a witness in exchange for his or her testimony. I would emphasize that a requirement that the defendant request such disclosure only applies in instances, as in the case at bar, where the defendant is fully aware of the existence of an agreement or deal with the witness. The focus of appellate review of this type of issue should be on the trier of fact’s right to know all of the relevant evidence concerning the credibilities of each witness, rather than on which party makes known that evidence. To insure the fairest result, the prosecution should be under a duty to disclose any deal made in exchange for a witness’s testimony, whether or not false testimony was presented concerning the existence of a deal, where the defense does not have specific knowledge of the agreement.
In the present case, there is no question but that. defendant was fully aware of the immunity granted to the witness but as pointed out by the majority, for some tactical reason did not bring out the immunity before the jury. I agree with the majority that under People v Atkins, 397 Mich 163; 243 NW2d 292 (1976), the facts of the case required a defense request to place a duty upon the prosecutor to disclose the immunity.