Court Opinion

ID: 9739816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:21:27.786683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.120703
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, P.J.
(dissenting). The majority opinion *640ably sets forth in detail the various errors that occurred in this trial and little elaboration is required. Nevertheless, the significance of these errors does deserve comment.
The prosecutor made a clear misstatement of law when he said that, if the defendant were acquitted by reason of insanity, defendant would spend 60 days in an insane asylum and "then he walks”. I do not believe that the curative instruction corrects this error since the instruction simply said that the defendant would be sent for evaluation of his present mental condition "and such further medical and legal proceedings as are then deemed necessary”. Given the high degree of credibility of the prosecutor, it is my belief that some jurors may have been misled by the instruction and that the court would have been well advised to specifically state to the jury that the prosecutor made a misstatement of law. If this were the only error, I would be prepared to say that it was harmless. However, there was much more.
The prosecutor erred by admonishing the jury to do its civic duty.
The prosecutor erred in referring to the alleged testimony of the absent Dr. Danto. Although there was actual testimony that defendant was sane, the jury, or some members thereof, might have been persuaded to go along with a theory of sanity based upon a reference in the trial to a Dr. Danto who is alleged to have found the defendant sane.
The jury selection process was improper.
The instruction to the jury on felony-firearm was incorrect, although I accept the analysis of the majority on this issue.
Each one of the above errors taken alone might very well be considered harmless. However, taken *641in their entirety, they paint the picture of a trial which got out of hand and was fundamentally unfair. The only substantial issue in this case related to the defendant’s sanity.. If all of the errors had been absent, it is my belief that the defendant’s chances of prevailing on that issue would have been considerably greater and I believe he should have had an opportunity to have a trial untainted by the mistakes which the majority acknowledges were errors of law. It is indeed difficult to draw the line at a point where an accumulation of harmless error results in substantial error. My view of this case is that we have crossed the line. See People v Spencer, 130 Mich App 527; 343 NW2d 607 (1983).
I would reverse and remand for new trial at which the errors referred to in the majority opinion would presumably not occur.