Court Opinion

ID: 9733862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:19:11.319247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.161401
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
(concurring). I write separately to explain what might be deemed an inconsistency between Chief Justice Williams’ opinion and my opinion in People v Bernard Smith, 81 Mich App 561; 266 NW2d 40 (1978), rev’d on other grounds 406 Mich 926 (1979).
In Bernard Smith, the Court of Appeals held that the offense of attempted larceny in a building *465should be treated as a misdemeanor for purposes of determining the admissibility of such a conviction for impeachment purposes, despite the fact that, according to the Penal Code’s general definitional provision, MCL 750.7; MSA 28.197, the crime is a felony. That result was reached because the specific provision of the Penal Code defining the crime made it a misdemeanor. MCL 750.92; MSA 28.287.
Thus, Bernard Smith dealt with a conflict between two provisions of one act — the Penal Code— unlike the cases decided today which involve provisions in the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.