Court Opinion

ID: 9740676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:40:16.376776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.656323
License: Public Domain

Marilyn Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent, as I do not believe that the complainant’s outburst was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
When a witness gives an unresponsive answer containing inadmissible evidence, the case must be very peculiar and strong to justify reversal. People v Tutha, 276 Mich 387, 393; 267 NW 867 (1936); People v Lumsden, 168 Mich App 286, 299; 423 NW2d 645 (1988). However, we scrutinize an unresponsive, inadmissible statement more carefully when the witness was in a position to know that his or her testimony was improper. See People v Holly, 129 Mich App 405, 415-416; 341 NW2d 823 (1983).
Immediately before her outburst, complainant learned that defendant’s prior convictions would not be admissible. On cross-examination by defense counsel, she lashed out at defendant calling him a murderer. She then stated, "I don’t care if I blew this case.”
I am unable to conclude that the reference to defendant as a murderer was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the jury was aware defendant was in prison, it had no reason to believe he was a murderer. Since the contents of complainant’s outburst were both knowingly inadmissible and prejudicial, I believe the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion for mistrial. Tutha, 393.
I would reverse.