Court Opinion

ID: 9672441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:55:14.59587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.196964
License: Public Domain

Cynar, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The disposition of the second issue is difficult because the impact a Bible quotation may have had on the jurors in this case cannot be ascertained. In People v Rohn, 98 Mich App 593, 597-598; 296 NW2d 315 (1980), lv den 410 Mich 876 (1980), this Court concluded that error requiring reversal occurred in closing argument when the prosecutor appealed to the jury’s religious duties in calling for defendant’s convictions. Similarly, People v Sutherland, 149 Mich App 161; 385 NW2d 637 (1985), disapproved of the prosecutor’s *484mention of the Ten Commandments during closing arguments.
In this case the defendant denied he was running from the police. The jury may have considered the only reason defendant was running from the area was because he had done something wrong. I am not completely convinced that the jury’s passions or fears were inflamed. However, my greatest concern is whether the biblical quotation may have influenced the jury. Even in this world of changing values, the Bible has enormous persuasive power in our society. It was appropriate to argue the facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts in this case. It was inappropriate, in this case, to argue guilt because the Bible said so. Defendant’s conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.