Court Opinion

ID: 9723194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:05:54.755291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.067710
License: Public Domain

Bronson, P. J.
(dissenting). The majority reverses because of what it views as an inadequate asportation instruction. I would hold that the instruction given was adequate to inform the jury of this requisite element of kidnapping.
The trial court instructed the jury as follows:
"In order to find the defendant guilty of kidnapping, you must find as a matter of fact that the element of asportation was present. Asportation as defined is a movement from one location to another. In order to find the defendant guilty of kidnapping, this asportation of the victim or the complainant must have an independent significance.”
Defendant contends that this instruction was inadequate, because it failed to specify of what the asportation must be independent. Defendant relies on People v Adams, 389 Mich 222; 205 NW2d 415 (1973). I would hold that the trial court’s instruction satisfied Adams.
In Adams, supra, at 236, the Court held that "the movement element must not be merely incidental to the commission of a lesser underlying crime, i.e., it must be incidental to the commission of the kidnapping”. Whether the required asportation independent of any underlying offense was present in the instant case was a jury question, to *362be decided after a charge instructing them on all elements of the offense. People v Adams, supra, at 244-245.
Unlike Adams or People v Hempton, 43 Mich App 618; 204 NW2d 684 (1972), on which the majority relies, there was an asportation instruction in the instant case. The problem is whether it sufficiently conveyed to the jury the idea that the movement element of the kidnapping had to be independent of any underlying offense. I would hold that it did.
One unstated policy of requiring asportation independent of any underlying crime is to prevent overcharging.1 For example, where the underlying crime is relatively minor, an overzealous prosecutor may be tempted to charge kidnapping, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. See People v Hempton, supra, at 625-626. Thus, the jury must be charged that asportation must be independent.
There are no magic words required for instructing the jury on the asportation element. People v Widgren, 53 Mich App 375; 220 NW2d 130 (1974). It is sufficient if the essence of the Adams asportation standard has been captured. Id. In the instant case, the jury heard much evidence on underlying criminal activities — a possible assault and forced sexual conduct.2 The trial judge’s instruction expressed to the jury the idea that the asportation element of kidnapping had to be "independent”. The only possible meaning of this instruction is that the asportation must have been independent of the underlying activity.
*363The trial judge in the instant case was faced with the dilemma of instructing the jury that the asportation must be independent of underlying crimes while at the same time not unduly emphasizing the criminal nature of the underlying activity for which defendant was not charged. While the charge may not be a model for emulation, I believe it adequately conveyed the essence of Adams.
I would also hold that none of the other alleged errors require reversal.
First, I would hold that the admission of hearsay evidence of defendant’s statement without proper foundation was harmless error as there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and defendant did not dispute the truth of the statement, gave testimony substantially identical to the statement and failed to object to admission of the statement at trial. See People v Kregger, 335 Mich 457; 56 NW2d 349 (1953), People v Cousins, 65 Mich App 709; 238 NW2d 378 (1975), People v Vargas, 50 Mich App 738; 213 NW2d 848 (1973).
Secondly, an error in an FBI "rap sheet” resulted in defendant being cross-examined about a non-existent breaking and entering conviction.3 Good faith reliance on a rap sheet excuses the asserted error. People v Sanders, 394 Mich 439; 231 NW2d 639 (1975).
Third, the use of an allegedly uncounseled conviction for impeachment is improper only if use of the conviction "might well have influenced the outcome of the case”. Loper v Beto, 405 US 473; 92 S Ct 1014; 31 L Ed 2d 374 (1972), People v Moore, 391 Mich 426; 216 NW2d 770 (1974). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt in the *364instant case and proper impeachment with a felony conviction, I am persuaded that the use of the uncounseled conviction was harmless error.
Finally, I would hold that the trial judge did recognize and exercise his discretion in ruling on the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions. See People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323; 217 NW2d 22 (1974).4 No other issues raised by defendant require reversal.
I would affirm the conviction.

 In People v Adams, supra, the Court held that the independent asportation element was required to prevent the kidnapping statute from being unconstitutional.

 Defendant was not charged with any other offenses. Adams, however, as the majority points out, held that the asportation instruction is required even if no other crimes are actually charged.

 Defendant apparently was convicted of entering without breaking.

 In discussing the admissibility of prior convictions, the following exchange took place:
"The Court: In any event, there is no agreement, and the court does rule the prosecutor would not be prevented from bringing out at least the defendant’s alleged prior conviction of this assaultive crime.
"Mr. Penta: Is the court saying it will exercise its discretion with respect to my particular motion?
"The Court: Right.”
Although other isolated statements may indicate to the contrary, I would hold that the trial judge did in fact recognize and exercise his discretion.