Court Opinion

ID: 9741718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:01:01.88966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.649183
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I must dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion dealing with the use of the tape recording and the introduction of Detective Smith’s testimony regarding the 17 sets of golf clubs.
The majority’s determination that the introduction of the tape recording constituted reversible error was based on three factors; (1) no proper foundation was laid, (2) the recording was so inaudible that it was rendered untrustworthy as a whole, and (3) the recording was not proper rebuttal evidence. Initially it must be noted that not only were factors one and two above not preserved by objections at trial, but they were not raised in any of the defendant’s arguments on appeal. Al*639though this Court has limited power to raise questions sua sponte, the present case does not constitute a proper subject for such action. See Vermeylen v Knight Investment Corp, 73 Mich App 632, 642; 252 NW2d 574 (1977). As to the admissibility of the tape recording I would address only that argument raised in the briefs, to wit: whether the recording constituted improper rebuttal evidence.
Rebuttal testimony is proper where it is limited to the refutation or impeachment of relevant and material evidence properly raised by the opposing party. People v Bennett, 393 Mich 445, 449; 224 NW2d 840 (1975); People v Ebejer, 66 Mich App 333, 340; 239 NW2d 604 (1976). In the present case the defendant’s daughter testified that she and Gregory Teeter planned to "set up” the defendant and placed a paper bag containing some watches in a closet of the defendant’s home. Later defendant’s wife found the bag but did not call the police since she said it did not occur to her that the contents were stolen. This testimony, taking into account the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, would tend to negate a finding that the defendant had knowledge of the stolen merchandise. The recording indicates defendant’s knowledge of certain jewelry store burglaries and shows the defendant’s participation in receiving the stolen goods. Thus the recording refutes the testimony of two defense witnesses pertaining to the defendant’s lack of guilty knowledge and constituted proper rebuttal.
I agree with the majority that Detective Smith’s testimony relating to the 17 sets of golf clubs was erroneously admitted as it goes to a collateral, nonmaterial issue. Impeachment by the use of extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter is improper. However, in light of the overwhelming *640evidence against the defendant1 I would hold the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096. See People v Sherman Hall, 77 Mich App 456, 461-462; 258 NW2d 517 (1977).
I would affirm the defendant’s conviction.

 At trial Gregory Teeter testified that he burglarized Weinstein’s Jewelry Store and after apprising defendant of the burglary, sold the stolen merchandise to defendant. Teeter then discussed with defendant a forthcoming burglary at the Fairway Jewelry Store and the defendant provided tools for the break-in. Upon successful completion of the Fairway burglary stolen merchandise was delivered to the defendant at his home. Teeter identified a watch taken from defendant’s wrist as one he had stolen from Weinstein’s. Various police officers testified as to their participation in the search of defendant’s home wherein certain items of jewelry were confiscated. These items were subsequently identified as stolen merchandise from the Weinstein and Fairway jewelry stores.