Court Opinion

ID: 9579196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:52:22.745215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:33.006065
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P. J.
(dissenting). I cannot subscribe to the majority’s conclusion that the admission of the time cards was harmless error.
The theory propounded by the defense in its opening statement and pursued throughout the trial was that either the prosecution’s only *731eyewitness to the homicide, the eyewitness’s brother, or their companion, perpetrated the killing and that the eyewitness accused the defendant of the killing in order to protect himself or the other two parties. To support this theory the defense introduced evidence to show that prior to the killing the eyewitness’s brother had established an intimate relationship with another man’s wife and that her husband had threatened the eyewitness’s brother. For that reason the defense contended that the brother had borrowed the defendant’s auto on three occasions, i.e., a week before the homicide, the day prior to the homicide, and on the day of the killing itself. The defense theorized that on the day of the homicide the eyewitness, his brother, and their companion left work in the brother’s vehicle which was a make similar to the defendant’s, that they came upon an auto resembling that of the husband who had threatened the brother, that they panicked and shot the driver of the other vehicle who, as it turned out, was someone other than the husband. Moreover the eyewitness admitted that a day or two before the homicide his brother and the defendant traded autos and that the husband followed the defendant in this auto for an extended period of time before they went to their respective employment.
The admission of the time cards contrary to the mandate of People v Lewis, 294 Mich 684; 293 NW 907 (1940), which proscribes the admission of business records in criminal cases, indicated the companion and the eyewitness’s brother were at work at the time of the killing thus negating the defendant’s theory of the case that the eyewitness, his brother, or their friend committed the crime and that the eyewitness implicated the defendant in order to protect one or more of the trio. Therefore *732the admission of the time card evidence was highly prejudicial to the defendant.
Clearly the evidence produced against the defendant was not overwhelming. Only one witness was produced who could identify the defendant as the killer. The admission of the time cards not only undermined the defendant’s theory of the case but also impermissibly bolstered the credibility of the eyewitness. It cannot be said that the jury completely ignored the import and purpose of the time card evidence.
Accordingly to cure the prejudice engendered by the time card evidence, I vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.