Court Opinion

ID: 9737404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:24:15.808726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.680496
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
Prior to voir dire the prosecutor requested that the court permit him to impeach defendant’s credibility with evidence of a 1980 conviction for conspiracy to commit larceny from a person. The request was granted. I disagree with the majority that the error in admitting the prior conviction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A witness’ credibility may be impeached with prior convictions only if the convictions satisfy the criteria set forth in MRE 609. The trial court failed to make any findings pursuant to MRE 609. The Supreme Court has held that crimes of theft are minimally probative and are admissible only if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. People v Allen, 429 Mich 558; 420 NW2d 499 (1988); People v Pedrin, 429 Mich 1216 (1988).
I also believe the court erred in permitting the prosecution to elicit substantial testimony concerning the passage of forged checks by defendant and another person. These bad acts involved only pending charges, not convictions. I do not think the challenged acts qualified for admission under any theory, and certainly were more prejudicial than probative on any aspect of this trial. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial following their admission, and I believe the motion should have been granted.
*483It makes little sense to convict a defendant for armed robbery in the taking of an automobile and then add a conviction for udaa for driving it away. Insofar as People v Wakeford, 418 Mich 95; 341 NW2d 68 (1983), permits such double prosecution and punishment, it should be reexamined.
Finally, my conscience is shocked at the sentence of forty to sixty years in prison. Although these victims were certainly terrified and psychically traumatized by this heinous crime, they were not injured or maimed. On these facts the minimum sentence of forty years, which greatly exceeds the sentencing guidelines recommendation of twelve years, was disparate and unwarranted.
I would reverse.