Court Opinion

ID: 9698145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:43:07.84911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.815491
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P. J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I disagree with the majority holding on Issue I.
Another panel of this Court has recently held in People v Jackson, 77 Mich App 392, 400-401; 258 NW2d 89 (1977):
"Absent an express prohibition by the Supreme Court, we would hold that, with some limitations, a defendant’s need for money may be shown in order to establish a motive for a theft offense. We do not believe that People v Johnson, [393 Mich 488; 227 NW2d 523 (1975)], prohibits that holding. We are opposed to a general rule or rationale that poor people are more likely to be criminals or that they are more likely to commit crimes which involve thefts of money. But we believe that, where a theft offense is involved, the prosecutor may prove a motive by showing that the defendant — whether poor or relatively affluent — was acutely short of money immediately before the offense occurred. Given such a rule, we would hold that the prosecutor’s questions in the present case were proper even if the defendant had properly preserved this question for appeal by making a timely objection.”
*457The instant case presents us with a defendant convicted of the theft offense of embezzlement.
I cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling defendant’s objection in instructing the jury that it may consider the examination on defendant’s financial status to show motive only. Again, as in Jackson, we are confronted with a brief inquiry into defendant’s financial situation, unlike the lengthy discourse had during the cross-examination of defendant relating to his financial status in People v Johnson, 393 Mich 488, 493, nl; 227 NW2d 523 (1975), People v Jackson, supra, at 401, People v Baldwin, 74 Mich App 700, 707-708; 254 NW2d 619 (1977).
The record leads me to believe that the jury did not assess its finding on the minimal discourse quoted in footnote 1 of the majority’s opinion and I find any error in allowing such cross-examination harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no manifest injustice here.
I would affirm.