Court Opinion

ID: 9732749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:33:36.988453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:32.561206
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). In People v Humphreys, 24 Mich App 411, 418; 180 NW2d 328 (1970), this Court reversed defendant’s conviction because the prejudice created by the following improper argument by the prosecutor could not have been cured by instructions:
"I can assure you this: That if the defendant in the opinion of the police and in my opinion were innocent of this charge, we would not be here right now.”
I am unable to distinguish that holding from the case at bar where the prosecutor argued:
"Do you think I, as a representative of the People, a Court officer, would come before you and represent to you a case that was a sham, a case — ”
This remark, as the remark in Humphreys, supra, "may well have led the jury to suspend its own powers of judgment in reviewing the evidence before it”. People v Humphreys, supra, at 419. See also People v McCoy, 392 Mich 231, 239-240; 220 NW2d 456 (1974).
*314Furthermore, with respect to the remark by the prosecutor as to the effect of the jury’s decision on the degree of public tolerance of crime in Midland County, I find People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294; 193 NW2d 363 (1971), to be controlling. In Farrar, supra, at 298, a new trial was required, even absent objection at trial, where the prosecutor "subtly converged] the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt by appealing to the jurors to perform a civic duty to support the police”. Here, the prosecutor stated that:
"[I]t is an important case for the people within the county. Because your outcome of the verdict will determine what the citizenry of Midland County will tolerate, will put up with.
"The results of your vote and your verdict through a guilty as charged will reflect, and reflect with a great resounding effect, of how the citizenry of Midland County feel about someone who sells for money an animal depressant * * * .”
As stated in Farrar, supra, at 299:
"The prosecutor should refrain from argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law, or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury’s verdict.” (Footnote omitted.)
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.