Court Opinion

ID: 9733449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:08:01.616211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:41.619348
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). Evidence that Taylor had, on a prior occasion, when confronted by an armed man, responded much like the fictional characters portrayed by Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford would respond, might tend to rebut Taylor’s trial testimony. But evidence tending to show that Taylor had pointed a gun at another person does not tend to rebut his testimony that he became hysterical at the sight of a gun being pointed at him.
Neither the trial judge nor the members of this Court have an experiential basis that would provide support for the view that a person who would so assault another would likely not become hysterical when he is so assaulted.
I am, therefore, inclined to the view that the rebuttal testimony that Taylor had, on a prior occasion,1 committed an assault with a gun, was *421without probative value. In all events, any minimal probative value was "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury . . . MRE 403.
I would hold that the admission of the rebuttal testimony was error2 and would remand for a new trial.
1 agree with the majority that People v Lytal, 415 Mich 603; 329 NW2d 738 (1982), does not preclude the admission of a prior conviction — for a purpose other than to attack a defendant’s general credibility — to rebut a specific statement made by the defendant at trial._

A different question might be presented if Taylor had claimed that he became hysterical, not because a gun was pointed at him, but because of the situation — his presence during the course of an attempted armed robbery. While his testimony during direct examination was unclear whether he asserted he became hysterical because of the situation or because a gun was pointed at him, it is apparent from the cross-examination that the prosecutor viewed Taylor’s testimony *421as a statement that he became hysterical because a gun had been pointed at him, and that was the view of both counsel and of the judge during the colloquy preceding the judge’s ruling that the rebuttal evidence would be admitted.

 The objection interposed by Taylor’s counsel was specific, and made the point set forth in the second sentence of this opinion.