People v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 05 February 1979
• Docket Number: 60847,Docket Nos. 59977
• Citation: 275 N.W.2d 253,405 Mich. 550
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Preston S. BALDWIN, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winston Churchill WOOLFOLK, Defendant-Appellant. 405 Mich. 550, 275 N.W.2d 253
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 253

275 N.W.2d 253

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Preston S. BALDWIN, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winston Churchill WOOLFOLK, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 59977, 60847.

405 Mich. 550, 275 N.W.2d 253

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 5, 1979.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Atty., Appeals, Asst. Pros. Atty. and Andrea L. Solak, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People in Preston S. Baldwin.

Don W. Atkins, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People in Winston Churchill Woolfolk.

James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, by F. Martin Tieber, Deputy State Appellate Defender and Daniel J. Wright, Asst. Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant Baldwin.

James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, by F. Martin Tieber, Deputy State Appellate Defender, for defendant Woolfolk.

PER CURIAM.

When the trial judge was asked to exclude defendant's prior conviction, in each case he concluded that the similarity of the prior offense and the one for which the defendant was standing trial was a factor to be weighed in Favor of allowing impeachment by the previous conviction. We hold that the trial judge misapplied the guidelines we set forth in People v. Jackson, 391 Mich. 323, 217 N.W.2d 22 (1974), and reverse.

I

Preston Baldwin was charged with assault with intent to commit murder and convicted by a jury of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder in November of 1974. The defendant admitted stabbing the victim, but claimed he acted in self-defense. Before testifying, he asked the trial judge to exclude evidence of his prior convictions of felonious assault and attempted armed robbery. The trial judge observed that both of the prior convictions were assaultive in nature, like the charged offense, and under Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965), the similarity of conduct was a factor weighing in favor of admitting the previous crimes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction in an opinion that did not discuss his impeachment by prior convictions. 74 Mich.App. 700, 254 N.W.2d 619 (1977).

Winston Woolfolk was charged with and convicted by a jury of armed robbery in 1976. Shortly after the people rested, the defendant moved to suppress his prior conviction of unarmed robbery. ¹ The trial judge denied the motion, citing Jackson and Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 383 F.2d 936 (1967), for the proposition that the similarity of the prior conviction and the charged offense is a factor weighing in favor of allowing impeachment by use of the conviction. After the denial of his motion, the defendant chose not to take the stand. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction and held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress because he "expressly recognized that he had discretion to allow or disallow the prior conviction impeachment".

II

In Jackson, we discussed the Luck and Gordon cases and said that we intended trial judges to be guided in their exercise of discretion in this area by the factors enumerated in those decisions:

"Among the factors to be considered are the nature of the prior offense, whether it is for substantially the same conduct for which the accused is on trial, and the effect on the decisional process if the accused does not testify from fear of impeachment by prior convictions." 391 Mich. 333, 217 N.W.2d 25.

...