Court Opinion

ID: 9728590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:12:05.567303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.097920
License: Public Domain

Bashara, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The issue presented for determination by this Court is whether an abuse of discretion is shown when a trial judge, in determining whether to allow evidence of a prior felony conviction to be used for purposes of impeachment, fails to state on the record the factors1 which were enumerated in *120People v Crawford, 83 Mich App 35, 39; 268 NW2d 275 (1978).
The Crawford decision never expressly required that the balance of factors must be stated on the record. This view is supported by People v Roberson, 90 Mich App 196, 202; 282 NW2d 280 (1979), wherein this Court said:
"Although the trial judge did not discuss the three criteria on the record, we do not read the prior case law as requiring a finding regarding these factors. * * * In the absence of an affirmative misapplication of the three criteria, we are unwilling to presume that the trial judge failed to consider the relevant criteria in admitting the evidence.”
Defendant’s former felony convictions should be reviewed in light of Crawford to determine if the trial judge affirmatively misapplied any of the criteria.2
One felony conviction was for uttering and publishing a forged instrument, MCL 750.249; MSA 28.446, a crime relating to truth and veracity. The crime was not similar to the one of which the defendant was accused. I am hard put to say that the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing evidence of that crime.
Defendant’s second felony conviction was for *121breaking and entering. This conviction must be weighed as a factor against admissibility because of the similarity with the crime for which the defendant stood accused. People v Baldwin, 405 Mich 550; 275 NW2d 253 (1979). Baldwin did not adopt a per se rule that evidence of similar convictions could never be used for impeachment. Rather, the Supreme Court held that the similarity of the conviction could not be used as a factor in favor of admissibility. The record discloses no indication that the trial judge used the similarity as a factor in favor of admissibility. Further, the prior theft is an offense which directly relates to truth and veracity.3
As the Supreme Court said in Baldwin, quoting from Gordon v United States, 127 US App DC 343, 347; 383 F2d 936 (1967):
"[O]ne solution might well be that discretion be exercised to limit the impeachment by way of a similar crime to a single conviction and then only when the circumstances indicate strong reasons for disclosure, and where the conviction directly relates to veracity.” 405 Mich 550, 553.
Finally, the majority holds that the defendant was prejudiced by the trial judge’s ruling because he was impeached by evidence of unspecified felony convictions. People v Garth, 93 Mich App 308; 287 NW2d 216 (1979). The majority notes the crucial distinction between Garth and the present case. In Garth, the trial judge decided the felonies should be unspecified. Here it was defendant’s counsel on direct examination who brought out evidence of the unspecified felonies. Although the *122prosecutor on cross-examination never asked the nature of the felonies, defendant’s counsel was still free to bring out the nature of the crimes on redirect examination. Apparently defense counsel felt that his client was not prejudiced, since he did not seek to recall his witness.
I would affirm the conviction.

 Since the judge’s ruling did not affect defendant’s decision to take the stand, this factor will not be discussed.

 Both the Federal and Michigan rules of evidence, in rule 609, allow even misdemeanor convictions to be used for impeachment purposes where theft is involved.