Court Opinion

ID: 9518366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:51:21.641701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:46.242283
License: Public Domain

M. S. Coleman, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). We concur with the Chief Justice relative to identification procedures, but dissent as to alleged "prosecutorial misconduct”. We would affirm the conviction.
It has long been settled that a witness may be *633cross-examined on collateral matters for the purpose of testing credibility of the testimony.1 The trial judge has discretion on the scope of cross-examination in impeaching the witness, and appellate courts will not interfere in the absence of abuse.2
In the instant case, defendant objects to cross-examination of his wife concerning: (1) ADC payments received by her although defendant lived at home; (2) defendant’s unemployment and his wife’s practice of feeding him; (3) purchase by defendant of a car; (4) defendant’s ownership of a cashmere coat; (5) defendant’s practice of occasionally spending the night away from home; and (6) wife’s claim that defendant spent $2 to have a tire changed on the night of the robbery.
Nothing in the cross-examination of the alibi witness, defendant’s wife, went to defendant’s criminal character. It was not in issue. Defendant did not take the stand. Cross-examination did go to the credibility of the witness and to the plan of action of defendant.
(1) The veracity of the statements requisite to ADC and the wife’s honesty in subsequent reporting of her status related directly to her honesty arid, therefore, to her credibility as a witness.
(2) Defendant’s unemployment and the witness’ purchase of food (and clothing?) for him from the ADC funds went to motive of defendant. (Also see [6].)
(3) Questions regarding the purchase of the $50 car were directed to credibility of the witness. For example:
*634”Q. Do you know who he bought the car from?
"A No, I don’t.
"Q. You have no idea?
'A. No, I don’t.
”Q. Do you know a person named Flynn?
'A. No.
"Q. F-L-Y-N-N?
"A. No.
”Q. As a matter of fact, wasn’t the car bought December 1st from a man named Flynn?
'A. I guess that is it.”
(4) As to the cashmere coat, the witness denied purchasing clothing for defendant so credibility was again in focus. She said he had had the coat for a long time. The judge sustained defendant’s objection to further questioning.
(5) The questions as to defendant’s whereabouts were also directed to credibility of the alibi witness. She had said that defendant lived at home, yet she testified that defendant came to pick her up at her mother’s (around the corner from her apartment) at about 3:36. (The robbery was at 3:45.)
”Q. Were you really living with your husband at that time?
’A. Yes.
”Q. Wasn’t he living somewhere else?
’A. No.”
The questions regarding his absence from the home followed the colloquy above and were directed towards credibility of the witness and not towards defendant’s character.
(6) The question concerning the $2 spent for a *635tire change was directed to the witness’ assertion that defendant had a flat tire and went to a gas station to "have it fixed” at the time of the robbery. Credibility of the alibi witness is crucial on this point. The record contains this exchange:
”Q. You are on ADC and with him unemployed, yet he hired somebody to change a tire for him?
"A. That is what he did.
”Q. And that tire never was flat, was it?
'A. It never was? Yes.
”Q. It was going flat?
’A. Yes, it was.”
Willie Williams testified that he did change a wheel between 3:15 and 5:15 on the day in question. He did not know if there was a hole in the tire. He had charged $2 for the service.
Defendant was unemployed and his wife had only $20 remaining to last almost two weeks, so spending $2 to do something which defendant could easily have done himself was significant to the alibi and again raises the question of credibility.
The jury’s assessment of the credibility of an alibi witness is especially crucial when defendant does not take the stand. We should not unduly restrict cross-examination merely because defendant inevitably enters into the answers of an alibi witness. Although defendant did not place his character in issue, neither did the prosecutor place it in issue. The prosecutor’s cross-examination of the alibi witness focused in small part upon defendant’s plan of action, but largely upon the wife’s credibility.
There was no "prosecutorial misconduct” in this *636case unless the Court is hereby establishing a straight-jacket double standard which would undermine the adversary system.
We would affirm.
J. W. Fitzgerald, J., concurred with M. S. Coleman, J.
Swainson and Lindemer, JJ., took no part in the decision of this case.

 People v Fenner, 217 Mich 239; 185 NW 806 (1921); People v La Londe, 197 Mich 76; 163 NW 490 (1917).

 People v Johnson, 382 Mich 632; 172 NW2d 369 (1969); People v Fleish, 321 Mich 443; 32 NW2d 700 (1948); People v Watson, 307 Mich 596; 12 NW2d 476 (1943).