Court Opinion

ID: 9738385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:51:43.028973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.700716
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). The majority opinion acknowledges "the conduct of the prosecutor was improper", that "on three different occasions the prosecutor repeated leading questions over objections that were sustained”. For example, on one occasion, the following took place:
"Q. [Prosecutor]: Was part of the arrangement between you and Mr. Gaffney that you were supposed to give him something after you ripped off Mr, Fair’s apartment?
"[Counsel for defendant]: I object to that, there’s been no testimony that there has been anything in evidence about any agreement to rip off, it’s putting words * * *
"The Court: Sustain the objection.
"Q. [Prosecutor]: Isn’t it true that there was an agreement between you and Mr. Gaffney that you give him something for robbing Mr. Andre Fair’s apartment?
"[Counsel for defendant]: Your Honor, there’s been no evidence that there was any agreement to rob the apartment.
"The Court: Sustained.
"[Prosecutor]: I’m asking him if he * * *
"The Court: I sustained the objection.
"Q. [Prosecutor]: Wasn’t there an agreement between you and Mr. Gaffney that you would pay him something if he helped you rob Andre Fair’s apartment?
"[Counsel for defendant]: Your Honor, I’m getting close to asking for a mistrial, that’s four times, he is trying to put testimony in his words before the jury. There’s a limit as to what you can tell him to disregard. *238I don’t want to keep jumping up like a jumping jack * * * he’s trying to make this jury think I’m trying to hide something. There’s no evidence * * *
"The Court: * * * [Y]ou have every reason to jump up and object to the question.”
However, the majority opinion declares such error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, citing People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 563; 194 NW2d 709 (1972).
The standards for determining whether error is reversible or harmless are:
"First, is the error so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial process that it never can be regarded as harmless? Second, if not so basic, can we declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?” People v Robinson, supra, 563 (Citations omitted.)
Thus, the initial step in determining whether error is harmless is to ascertain its impact upon the maintenance of a sound judicial process. "An error may be intolerably offensive if it is deliberately injected into the proceedings by the prosecutor.” People v Swan, 56 Mich App 22, 32; 223 NW2d 346 (1974) (footnote omitted). I do not think that this Court should condone the deliberate injection, by the prosecutor in this case, of prejudicial material by labeling such error harmless. I find such error "so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial process that it never can be regarded as harmless”.