Court Opinion

ID: 9543914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:25.500193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:27.202603
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, P. J.
Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of armed robbery, contrary to MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, and assault with intent to commit murder, contrary to MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278. He was subsequently sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison and now appeals as of right.
Defendant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the testimony elicited during the examination of a prosecution witness who alluded to defendant’s past incarceration. We disagree.
The testimony at issue was given in response to the following questions:
*350"Q [by the prosecutor] Did you know Jessee McQueen [the defendant] in December, 1976?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q How long had you known him up to that time?
"A I first met him, it was either late part of August, first part of September, when he gotten out of county jail”
It cannot be said that the prosecutor anticipated or hoped to elicit prejudicial testimony from the aforementioned line of questioning. Cf. People v Greenway, 365 Mich 547; 114 NW2d 188 (1962).
The case of People v Harry Fleish, 321 Mich 443; 32 NW2d 700 (1948), is dispositive of defendant’s claim.
"We think the record does not justify the conclusion that this improper testimony was deliberately injected into the case by the prosecutor. * * * Inadvertent irregularities of this character are bound to occur in the course of prolonged, hotly contested trials, and when, as in the instant case, the objectionable testimony is purged from the record by the trial court, the irregularity should not be held to constitute reversible error in the absence of a persuasive showing of prejudice.” People v Fleish, supra, at 462-463. Also see People v Solis, 32 Mich App 191; 188 NW2d 166 (1971).
Defendant next contends that testimony elicited on cross-examination from a prosecution witness concerning "mug shot” photographs of defendant was prejudicial and requires reversal of his convictions. This argument fails in light of the aforementioned discussion.
Defendant’s final allegation of error fails in light of People v Bills, 53 Mich App 339; 220 NW2d 101 (1974).
Affirmed.
*351D. E. Holbrook, J., concurred.