Court Opinion

ID: 9686535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:53:59.205047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.847043
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority opinion subject to the following observations.
First, I agree with Justice Levin’s concurring opinion in People v Talley, 410 Mich 378, 393; 301 NW2d 809 (1981), regarding the dangers inherent *750in the overly restrictive Spalding1 definition of what constitutes an abuse of a trial court’s discretion. See also Guzowski v Detroit Racing Ass’n, Inc, 130 Mich App 322; 343 NW2d 536 (1983). However, since I also believe that the trial court in this case exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner under MRE 609, I agree that the admission of evidence of defendant’s prior convictions does not constitute reversible error.
Nor do I concur with the majority opinion’s critique of People v Jones, 98 Mich App 421; 296 NW2d 268 (1980).
Finally, I do not agree that an otherwise valid line-up was impaired by the presence of one person taller than the others. Discrepancies in height do not necessarily result in constitutionally defective line-ups, People v Barnes, 107 Mich App 386, 389-390; 310 NW2d 5 (1981), lv den 413 Mich 867 (1982), and I find nothing in the briefs or records to indicate that the line-up here was in any way suggestive.

 Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382, 384; 94 NW2d 810 (1959).