Court Opinion

ID: 9517341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:13:42.914406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:53.934411
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
(concurring). I concur with Justice Adams’ conclusion that under Michigan law as it now stands, the questioning of a witness to test his credibility may include questions about prior convictions. For the reasons set forth in the per curiam opinion in Taylor v. Walter (1968), 15 Mich App 361, I think GCR 1963, 607 permits such questioning in the discretion of the trial judge.
Since the trial judge here saw fit to permit it, I cannot conclude he abused his discretion despite *615my strong conviction that it should not have been done.
Judge Charles L. Levin,1 Mr. Joel Cohen2 and Professor Alexander D. Brooks of the Rutgers Law School3 have highlighted the importance of this question to our criminal jurisprudence.
Recognizing this, and believing it to be no less important to our civil jurisprudence, I am of the opinion that the Michigan rule should be improved.

 People v. Hall (1969), 19 Mich App 95, 111-115.

 Impeachment of a Defendant-Witness by Prior Conviction, 6 Criminal Law Bulletin 26 (1970).

 The Treatment of Witnesses in the Proposed Pules of Evidence of the United States District Courts: article IV, 25 Record of NYCBA 632 (1970). This article discusses Rule 6-09, as set forth in the preliminary draft of proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates prepared by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, March, 1969.