Court Opinion

ID: 9849151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:35:21.785075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:02.417600
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). Although I agree that the prosecutor’s closing argument erroneously referred to matters outside the evidence, I believe the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that counsel waived the error. As that Court noted, 133 Mich *379App 318, 324; 350 NW2d 248 (1984), after defense counsel objected to the argument he stated:
If I’m not, in some manner, allowed to respond to that, I don’t see how I can respond on the basis of the evidence. Of course, no evidence was introduced as to this Court’s appointment as to the amount of money he’s to be paid for this service. Again, I’d ask for a mistrial.
In response to these statements, the trial judge stated that he would allow defense counsel to reply in kind. Defense counsel did so without renewing his request for mistrial or otherwise indicating that the trial court’s offer was inadequate to cure the error.
Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, ante, pp 376-377, had defense counsel insisted on a mistrial, he would not have waived the claim that the prosecutor’s bad-faith misconduct so irretrievably prejudiced defendant that the trial should have been aborted. Given the fact that the record already contained one basis for a claim of double jeopardy, it is understandable that a skillful lawyer in defense counsel’s position would opt not for a further appellate issue, but for an opportunity to attack the credibility of the prosecutor and his expert evidence in closing argument.
Moreover, since even absent objection the appellate court will review for error which creates "a manifest injustice,” People v White, 25 Mich App 176; 181 NW2d 56 (1970); People v Lane, 127 Mich App 663; 339 NW2d 522 (1983), in accepting the trial court’s offer, defense counsel made not only a reasonable, but an extremely skillful tactical decision. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.