Court Opinion

ID: 9693350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:38:14.042968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.364686
License: Public Domain

D. F. Walsh, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). Defendant, Terryes Johnson, was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305. He was sentenced to a prison term of six to ten years.
Defendant first challenges the adequacy of the court’s instructions to the jury regarding specific intent. Review of the instructions as a whole, however, demonstrates conclusively that the instructions were proper and adequate.
Next, defendant contends that the court committed reversible error in permitting admission of evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for attempted breaking and entering for impeachment purposes. The majority agrees and reverses. I must repectfully dissent.
The record establishes that the court recognized and exercised its discretion. People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323; 217 NW2d 22 (1974). I find no abuse of that discretion. People v Williams, 413 Mich 72; 318 NW2d 462 (1982).
The court correctly recognized that the similarity between the prior convictions and the charged offense required that the court be "extremely careful” in determining admissibility. People v Bald*176win, 405 Mich 550; 275 NW2d 253 (1979). Evidence of the prior convictions for theft-related offenses was, however, probative of defendant’s credibility. See People v Gary Johnson, 105 Mich App 332, 341; 306 NW2d 501 (1981); People v Rush, 118 Mich App 236; 324 NW2d 586 (1982). And the court’s ruling did not deprive the jury of defendant’s testimony. Compare People v Williams, supra.
I am persuaded that there was no abuse of discretion and that defendant received a fair trial. I would affirm.