Court Opinion

ID: 9689351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:28:35.142294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.173660
License: Public Domain

D. C. Riley, P.J.
(concurring). I write separately to acknowledge my opinion in People v Prophet, 101 Mich App 618; 300 NW2d 652 (1980). On the basis of Prophet, I would conclude that it was improper for the officer to testify as to what the complainant actually said. However, it is also the law in Michigan that the admission of incompetent hearsay testimony may be considered harmless error where the same facts are shown by other competent testimony. People v Hoerl, 88 Mich App 693; 278 NW2d 721 (1979). In this case, the complainant had already testified as to defendant’s actions at the time in question and had identified defendant in court. The officer’s testimony, in light of the other identification evidence, did not constitute reversible error.