Court Opinion

ID: 9656345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:46:54.220698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:31.868537
License: Public Domain

S. Everett, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s reversal of defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery, but I must respectfully dissent from the reversal of his murder conviction.
The trial court’s consideration of defendant’s intent to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is barred by the decision in People v Hayes, 410 Mich 422; 301 NW2d 828 (1981). However, this Court in People v Jones, 98 Mich App 421, 431; 296 NW2d 268 (1980), cited, with approval, the following language from United States v Cook, 608 F2d 1175, 1186 (CA 9, 1979):
"In future cases, to preserve the issue for review, a defendant must at least, by a statement of his attorney: (1) establish on the record that he will in fact take the stand and testify if his challenged prior convictions are excluded; and (2) sufficiently outline the nature of his testimony so that the trial court, and the reviewing court, can do the necessary balancing contemplated in Rule 609.”
*629I recognize that the effect on the decisional process if the accused does not testify out of fear of impeachment by prior convictions is only one of the factors required to be considered under People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35; 268 NW2d 275 (1978). Nonetheless, I believe that compliance with the rule enunciated in Jones is essential if the trial judge is to have an adequate basis for the exercise of his discretion. Here defense counsel made no statement at all as to whether his client would or would not testify depending upon the court’s ruling and, of course, did not outline the nature of defendant’s testimony if he were to testify. I therefore believe the error was waived and that the murder conviction and the conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony should be affirmed.