Court Opinion

ID: 9740638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:39:11.270523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.392395
License: Public Domain

Connor, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached only because Administrative Order No. 1990-6, 436 Mich lxxxiv, requires this Court to decide this case in accordance with People v Newcomb, 190 Mich App 424, 429-430; 476 NW2d 749 (1991). Were it not for the administrative order, I would reverse defendant’s convictions and remand for a new trial.
*373I believe the statement of facts as contained in the majority opinion should be supplemented by the following material for clarification. Over defense objection, the court allowed police officer Marvin Butler to read a statement given by witness Carey Jackson following the shooting. In the statement, Jackson said he recognized defendant, whom he had known for seven or eight years, as one of the men getting out of the car and running toward the store and that defendant was carrying a pistol in his right hand. The court ruled this testimony admissible under MRE 613(b) as impeachment by extrinsic evidence. After the prosecution called another witness, Chaka Bell, who testified that he was outside the store and heard some shots but could not provide details, the trial court permitted police officer Dennis Richardson to read a statement taken from Bell. In the statement Bell said that he heard three shots and saw a man with a gun running down the street. The court again instructed the jury that the written statements by Bell and Jackson were admitted for impeachment only and were not substantive evidence. Sergeant Bivens was allowed to testify that Carey Jackson picked out two photographs of the men who got out of the car, and that Carey stated that the photograph depicting the defendant was a photograph of the man he saw carrying a gun. Sergeant Bivens’ testimony was admitted under MRE 801(d) on the basis that it came within an exception to the hearsay rule. Attorney James Hall, who was present at the photographic lineup, testified that Carey Jackson identified the defendant as the man with the gun.
As part of her argument to the jury, the prosecutor compared the crime scene to "Dodge City” of the "wild, wild west” and described the defendant as the kind of person who causes everyone to *374scatter when he approaches, and of whom "nobody knows anything.”
The court, at the conclusion of the proofs, instructed the jury that the police officer’s testimony concerning the prior inconsistent statements of the witnesses was for impeachment purposes only and
[t]his evidence was permitted solely for the purpose of testing or judging the believability of the testimony which the witness did make here in court under oath.
At trial, witness Carey Jackson stated that he could not identify the perpetrator of the offense. He did not make an allegedly false identification; rather, he declined to identify anyone. It was not necessary to impeach the witness so that the jury could discount any negative statement he may have made or correct false impressions he may have created. Nor was a proper foundation provided to permit impeachment of witness Chaka Bell. In both instances, the alleged impeachment was merely a subterfuge to place the negative statements before the jury, and the prosecutor compounded the error by suggesting during final argument that the witnesses had recanted out of fear of retaliation. Given the nature of the testimony of four separate and presumably reliable witnesses—three police officers and a lawyer—the prejudicial effect could not be purged by a limiting instruction to the lay persons comprising the jury that the statements could be considered only for impeachment. It would be impossible for a juror to overlook the police officer’s allegation of prior identification in a brutal slaying when the prosecutor suggests the person on trial is the kind of person who causes everyone to scatter when he *375approaches, and of whom "nobody knows anything.”
The majority opinion does not address the impeachment issue, but would affirm the trial court’s decision to admit the third-party identification testimony under MRE 801(d)(1), holding that, because the declarant of the extrajudicial statement testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination, the statement is not hearsay.
There has been a longstanding split in this Court concerning whether MRE 801(d)(1) permits a third-party to testify about an out-of-court identification of a criminal defendant made by another witness. In Newcomb, supra, a panel of this Court decided that such third-party testimony was admissible.1
However, in People v Sanford, 402 Mich 460; 265 NW2d 1 (1978), five of the justices who had just enacted the rule of evidence expressed their opinion that it would not allow admission of third-party testimony of out-of-court identifications. Id. at 487, n 3, 499-500. Two justices thought the rule would allow admission of third-party testimony. Id. at 497. Thus, I conclude that MRE 801(d)(1) does *376not permit third-party testimony concerning out-of-court identifications by other witnesses.2
Because I cannot say with sufficient certainty that without the third-party testimony defendant would have been convicted, I would reverse defendant’s convictions were it not for Administrative Order No. 1990-6.

 This court has held such third-party testimony inadmissible twelve times, admissible nine times, and one time it declined to decide because any error would have been harmless. In no published case has a panel of this Court found admission of third-party testimony to require reversal. See Newcomb, supra, p 429, ns 1, 2; People v Iehl, 100 Mich App 277, 281-282; 299 NW2d 46 (1980); People v Prophet, 101 Mich App 618, 623-624; 300 NW2d 652 (1980); People v Casey, 102 Mich App 595, 604-605; 302 NW2d 248 (1980), reversal of lower court decision aff'd on other grounds 411 Mich 179; 305 NW2d 247 (1981); People v Kramer, 108 Mich App 240, 254-255; 310 NW2d 347 (1981); People v Gwinn, 111 Mich App 223, 244-246; 314 NW2d 562 (1981); People v Khabar, 126 Mich App 138; 337 NW2d 9 (1983); People v Percy, 127 Mich App 1, 4-5; 338 NW2d 398 (1983); People v Jones, 144 Mich App 1, 4-5; 373 NW2d 226 (1985); People v Dixon, 161 Mich App 388, 396; 411 NW2d 760 (1987); People v Michael, 181 Mich App 236, 241; 448 NW2d 786 (1989); People v McCurdy, 185 Mich App 503, 505; 462 NW2d 775 (1990).

 It is true that the language of the rule parallels FRE 801(dXl)(C) and that federal courts permit the use of third-party testimony under the federal rule. See United States v Anderson, 406 F2d 719 (CA 4, 1969), and United States v Jarrad, 754 F2d 1451 (CA 9, 1985). Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled with regard to the issue, United States v Owens, 484 US 554; 108 S Ct 838; 98 L Ed 2d 951 (1988), should leave little doubt that it would not have a problem with a third-party testifying under the rule. In Owens, the identifying witness could not make an in-court identification and, although he could not remember why he had done so, he testified that he had previously identified the defendant. The Court decided that even though the witness was unavailable under FRE 804(a) because of lack of memory, he was available for cross-examination under FRE 801(d)(1)(C) to testify about the previous identification. However, MRE 801 is a Michigan rule of evidence. While interpretation of its federal counterpart may be instructive in the absence of Michigan authority, the interpretation of the rule given by the Michigan Supreme Court is controlling and should have been followed.