Court Opinion

ID: 9687828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:51:00.258925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.181817
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority decision to decline to consider the question of the propriety of the admission of the time cards into evidence merely because defendant’s trial counsel failed to voice an objection. It is settled law in this state that failure to object does not preclude this Court from reviewing a claim where a constitutional right is likely to have been infringed. People v Lester, 50 Mich App 725; 213 NW2d 793 (1973); People v Thomas, 44 Mich App 649; 205 NW2d 604 (1973); People v Cotton, 38 Mich App 763; 197 NW2d 90 (1972).
In People v Lewis, 294 Mich 684; 293 NW 907 (1940), our Supreme Court held that it was error to admit business records into evidence in a criminal proceeding under an exception to the hearsay rule because to do so deprives the defendant of his right of confrontation as guaranteed by Const 1963, art 1 § 20, and the Sixth Amendment to the *218United States Constitution. The admission of the time cards in the instant case, therefore, clearly constituted error. However, the question remains whether this error requires a reversal of defendant’s conviction. In People v Gauthier, 28 Mich App 318; 184 NW2d 488 (1970), lv den 384 Mich 812 (1971), this Court held that although error was committed when certain business records were admitted into evidence, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of the overwhelming convicting evidence which had been presented. I am convinced that the error in the instant case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The theory provided by the defense was one of alibi. To support this theory, the defendant produced witnesses who stated they were with defendant and Alphonso Floyd at the time the shots were fired. Other defense witnesses identified Floyd as being down on the street immediately after the shooting. Floyd himself said he was in the apartment, went out on the street, returned home, and then went to work.
The admission of the time cards contrary to the mandate of People v Lewis, supra, indicated that Floyd and a companion were at work at the time of the firing of the shots, thus negating not only the defendant’s theory of the case that Floyd was with him, but also attacking the credibility of defendant’s other witnesses who testified they saw Floyd shortly after the shooting. Therefore the admission of the time card evidence was highly prejudicial to the defendant.
Accordingly, to cure the prejudice engendered by the time card evidence, I vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.