Court Opinion

ID: 9685207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:26:11.551913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.323800
License: Public Domain

H. L. Heading, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I believe that reversal of defendant’s conviction is required. Regardless of whether or not any one of the errors in this case constitutes clearly reversible error, the totality of the errors certainly deprived defendant of a fair trial. People v Skowronski, 61 Mich App 71, 77; 232 NW2d 306 (1975).
I
Defense counsel submitted a request that the trial court include in its final instructions a cautionary or limiting instruction on defendant’s prior criminal conduct. Subsequently, defense counsel withdrew that request, and the court agreed not to give the instruction. However, the court in its instructions to the jury gave the withdrawn instruction.
Although defense counsel, through his requested instruction, originally sought to have the jury’s consideration of defendant’s prior record properly limited to the issue of credibility alone, defense counsel apparently decided that the value of such an instruction was outweighed by the prejudicial impact of reminding the jury of defendant’s previous convictions. The cautionary instruction at issue here is obviously designed to benefit a defendant, and, thus, the decision as to whether or not to give such an instruction should properly be left to the defense. Compare the control which the defense exercises over the cautionary instruction *64regarding a defendant’s failure to testify. People v Hampton, 394 Mich 437; 231 NW2d 654 (1975).
In any event, regardless of who determines the appropriateness or necessity of an instruction, it is fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process for a trial judge, as here, to renege on an agreed course of instruction. People v Patskan, 387 Mich 701, 708-710; 199 NW2d 458 (1972) (opinion of SWAINSON, J.).
II
The prosecutor, during his examination of a police officer regarding the pretrial photographic identification of defendant, deliberately elicited testimony regarding a "mug shot” of defendant and the fact that the various photographs of defendant were obtained from "other police agencies”. Out of the presence of the jury defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion but reprimanded the prosecutor for his "ill-advised” questions.
There can be no doubt that this line of questioning was highly suggestive of previous arrests and criminal conduct on the part of defendant. The introduction of evidence referring to a defendant’s criminal record is improper where, as here, the defendant has not yet taken the stand and where defense counsel has not invited the error. People v Embry, 68 Mich App 667, 670; 243 NW2d 711 (1976). This Court has even held this type of error to be "beyond instructional cure.”. People v Deblauwe, 60 Mich App 103; 230 NW2d 328 (1975).
III
Defendant objected to wearing, in the presence of the jury, a blue, 1-1/2 inch jail identification *65wrist band. The trial judge denied defendant’s motion for removal of the band, citing lack of prejudice as well as difficulty with removing the band.
Ordinarily, a court has no discretion with respect to a defendant’s attire and must allow defendant to wear civilian rather than prison clothing. People v Shaw, 381 Mich 467; 164 NW2d 7 (1969). Inasmuch as defendant’s objection came prior to impanelling of the jury, he has properly preserved this issue for appeal. People v Reginald Harris, 80 Mich App 228; 263 NW2d 40 (1977).
Although the wrist band at issue here is certainly not as readily prejudicial as more obvious forms of prison garb, there is no guarantee that the wrist band would not be observed and recognized by a juror. If recognized, the wrist band would be just as prejudicial as any other type of prison garb. In this situation, a defendant is precluded from establishing anything more than the possibility of prejudice, as voir dire of the jurors on this point would be counter-productive. The record reveals no effort by the court to remove the possibility of prejudice through alternative methods; concealing or covering the band was not attempted. Absent any compelling state interest, the possibility of prejudice outweighs the utility or convenience of the wrist band. Estelle v Williams, 425 US 501, 505-506; 96 S Ct 1691; 48 L Ed 2d 126, 131 (1976).
IV
Defendant has been tried and convicted of the instant offense twice. His first conviction was reversed by this Court in People v Drew, 67 Mich App 295; 240 NW2d 776 (1976). Defendant contends that reversible error occurred when the trial *66judge, who had presided at his first trial, failed to sua sponte disqualify himself from sitting at the second trial.
In Michigan, as in other jurisdictions, in the absence of specific statutory or constitutional grounds for disqualification, the disqualification of the original trial judge to sit on retrial after reversal is within the judge’s own judgment and discretion. Kolowich v Wayne Circuit Judge, 264 Mich 668; 250 NW 875 (1933). However, in light of the fact that the issue of disqualification has now been raised and in light of this Court’s disposition of this case, it would seem that the appearance of justice would be better served by a different judge presiding over a third trial of this cause. Cf. People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323, 340-341; 217 NW2d 22 (1974).
V
Defendant’s other assignments of error do not warrant extended treatment:
There was no need for a second hearing on the issue of identification as that issue had already been decided by this Court’s previous decision, and no new facts were offered. Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720; 209 NW2d 843 (1973), Naples v United States, 123 US App DC 292; 359 F2d 276 (1966).
The decision as to whether or not defendant could be impeached with his prior felony convictions was within the discretion of the trial judge. People v Jackson, supra, at 332-336.
Finally, no error occurred when the prosecutor’s closing argument referred to defendant’s prior convictions; the prosecutor’s use of those convic*67tions properly focused on the issue of credibility. People v DerMartzex, 390 Mich 410, 413; 213 NW2d 97 (1973).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.