Court Opinion

ID: 9667929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:57:53.704458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.590327
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant reveals a calculated attempt to introduce, by way of innuendo, matters irrelevant yet highly prejudicial to defendant. One line of cross-examination insinuated that defendant’s mother had told the police that defendant had stolen her car:
*142"Q. And the car you had wasn’t yours?
"A Correct.
"Q. It was your mother’s car?
"A. Correct.
"Q. And isn’t it a fact your mother didn’t even know that you had the car?
"A. Yes, she did.
"Q. Are you aware that the police talked with your mother?
"A. Yes, I am.
"Q. And do you know what your mother told the police?
"A. I am not aware what she told them, no.
”Q. I said, do you know what your mother told the police?
"A I do not.
"Q. Now, are you saying that your mother knew you had the car?
"A. Yes.
”Q. That you had it with her permission?
"A Yes.
"Q. What was your mother using for a car?
"A. If I may explain the circumstances around the car I think it would clarify this to this court of how I came upon the car.
”Q. You can answer.
"A It was on a Saturday, approximately towards the end of March, I asked her if I could use the car to take a friend to Mishawaka. I took him to Mishawaka and came back into Niles and there I went to Coloma and just didn’t return the car up until the time when they stopped me and arrested me for this charge.
"Q. Are you aware that Detective Mills talked with your mother and brother?
"A. I am not aware, other than what you have just told me.”
Although the trial court had ruled that defendant’s prior convictions were inadmissible for impeachment purposes, the prosecutor’s cross-exami*143nation skillfully conveyed the notion that defendant had a history of trouble with law enforcement agencies. After implying, through his questions, that defendant used his position as a police drug informant to avoid suspicion, the prosecutor employed the following line of questioning:
”Q. And you were only informing to the Coloma Police Department, is that right?
"A. Correct.
"Q. You weren’t informing to the Sheriffs Department?
’A. This is correct.

"Q. Because you knew the Sheriff’s Department knew you and what you were, is that not right?

CA. I cannot answer that question because I don’t know what you mean.
”Q. That might apply to the State Police, too.
'A. I didn’t hear that last question.
”Q. That applies to the State Police, they knew you too?
’A. I do not know this.
"Q. But you had the Coloma Township Police Department fooled.
'A. I did not have them fooled.
”Q. They thought you were a — had turned goody-goody?
’A. The reason I had even worked with the Coloma Township Police is because I knew Jack Page from the past and Officer La Vanway. I used to go to school with them. The reason for not working with the Sheriff’s Department was because of some personal on Metro, [sic].

"Q. You knew certain members on the Sheriff’s Department?

"A. Yes.

”Q. And they knew you too?

'A. Well, they probably have. I have lived around here all my life.
*144”Q. From way back a few years. So you knew you couldn’t fool them, is that not right?
"A. I have never — I haven’t been trying to fool anybody.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The prosecutor violated his duty to defendant and the public, see People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277; 169 NW2d 483 (1969), by his repeated attempts to establish by innuendo matters otherwise inadmissable. People v Coleman, 51 Mich App 539; 215 NW2d 585 (1974), People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294; 193 NW2d 363 (1971). Since I think the introduction of highly prejudicial matters by devious means seriously disadvantaged defendant’s position, I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant received a fair trial. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.