Court Opinion

ID: 9735698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:28:11.049996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.979844
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring). I concur with my colleagues that this case is distinguishable from People v Hall, 391 Mich 175; 215 NW2d 166 (1974), because the questions were part of a relevant inquiry about the witness’ activities at the time of the killing and because the direct examination before and after the questions had no reference to "opinions on the subject of religion.” Id. at 181, citing People v Jenness, 5 Mich 305, 319 (1858). However, I do not believe that the analysis provided by Hall, supra, needs revisiting. In my view, *300improper questioning of a witness on the subject of religion may not be deemed harmless.