Court Opinion

ID: 9728660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:13:26.546966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.764909
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). The question in this *319case is the extent of the error in excluding, on hearsay grounds, testimony which bears directly on the only contested issue below — whether defendant knew the car was stolen when she bought or received it. We all agree that error occurred. My review of the record convinces me the error deprived defendant of the opportunity to fully present her defense, and thus deprived her of a fair trial.
The two lines of inquiry in question involved conversations with the seller during price negotiations and during the transfer of funds and receipt of registration at the Secretary of State’s office. See footnote 1 of the majority opinion. In each case, the trial court limited the testimony on the basis of hearsay. Since the purpose of this testimony was not to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the conversations, but rather, to show that defendant did not know the car was stolen, the trial court erred in excluding it. People v Hallaway, 389 Mich 265, 275; 205 NW2d 451 (1973) (opinion of T. E. Brennan, J.), People v Cameron, 52 Mich App 463; 217 NW2d 401 (1974). In my view, the error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal.
The prosecution argued that defendant’s explanation of how she acquired this car was unreasonable and that the jury should infer that defendant knew the car was stolen from the facts and circumstances. However, only a part of the facts and circumstances had been presented, those supporting the prosecutor’s theory. All the defense was allowed to show was defendant’s claim that she had paid $1,500 for a Continental Mark III.
The heart of the defense was showing that defendant, from her inexperience, believed the amount paid was reasonable and that nothing in *320the documents received from the Secretary of State’s office should have led her to the opposite conclusion. The improperly excluded evidence would bear directly on these points. By excluding the testimony, the court deprived defendant of a large part of her defense. See, Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284; 93 S Ct 1038; 35 L Ed 2d 297 (1973).
I would reverse.