Court Opinion

ID: 9689074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:18:23.406903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:44.246379
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority’s holding that defendant’s silence was properly used as substantive evidence of guilt. I would distinguish People v Dietrich, 87 Mich App 116; 274 NW2d 472 (1978), on the basis that we do not have here a situation where "it clearly appears that the defendant understood and unambiguously assented to the statement made * * Dietrich, supra, 131. (Emphasis added.)
For the reasons stated in People v Washington, 100 Mich App 628; 300 NW2d 347 (1980), People v Norris, 74 Mich App 361; 253 NW2d 767 (1977), and People v Hurd, 102 Mich App 424; 301 NW2d 881 (1980), and because credibility was crucial in this case, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.