Court Opinion

ID: 9705079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:56:03.94876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.799701
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(concurring). I concur separately only because I must again question the logic of Sting v Davis, 384 Mich 608; 185 NW2d 360 (1971). *217See also Cobb v Harris, 47 Mich App 617; 209 NW2d 741 (1973).
We are bound to follow Sting v Davis, supra, which relied on GCR 1963, 607. However, the Sting rule does nothing more than permit past unrelated acts of negligence to be admitted to show a party’s negligence in the action being litigated. This result is obtained under the rationale of Sting that in some manner, prior traffic offenses bear upon credibility.
For a more apt critique of the Sting v Davis doctrine, see Josephson, Civil and Criminal Evidence, 18 Wayne L Rev 101, 137-138 (1972). This separate concurrence is written in the hope that our Supreme Court will review their holding in Sting v Davis, supra, and will adopt rule 609(a)(2) of the Proposed Rules of Evidence.