Court Opinion

ID: 9704113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:22:49.14501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:56.980073
License: Public Domain

Danhof, J.,
(concurring). I concur in the decision of Judge Burns, recognizing in doing so that it is inconsistent with People v Danles, 15 Mich App 510 (1969) which I signed. Danles was based on People v Eagger, 4 Mich App 449 (1966), which at that time was the sole pronouncement of this Court on requiring the trial court, absent a request, to instruct the jury that prior inconsistent statements of a witness could be used for impeachment purposes only. Subsequent to Danles we have had People v Virgil Brown, 15 Mich App 600 (1969), People v Budary, 22 Mich App 485 (1970) [which this writer authored], the second People v Virgil Brown, 28 Mich App 248 (1970) [this writer being a member of the panel], and finally People v Guilinger, 30 Mich App 711 (1971). I now concur *217with the decision of this Court in Guilinger, supra, p 715, which stated:
"We choose to follow the rule that, absent request, reversible error is not committed by the trial court’s failure to give a limiting instruction on the use of testimony introduced to impeach a res gestae witness.”
I concur with Judge Burns in applying the same rule to the testimony of an accomplice.
Judge Holbrook concurs in this opinion for the reason that he also signed People v Danles, 15 Mich App 510 (1969).