People v. Buckey, Docket No. 68728
Decision Date | 04 May 1984 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 68728 |
Citation | 348 N.W.2d 53,133 Mich.App. 158 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Grove BUCKEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., George B. Mullison, Pros. Atty., and Thomas J. Rasdale, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by Richard B. Ginsberg, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before KELLY, P.J., and CYNAR and KINGSLEY *, JJ.
On July 2, 1982, defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520g(2); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(7)(2). He was sentenced to a term of from three to five years in prison and appeals his conviction as of right. An earlier trial was conducted in February of 1982 and resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. In both proceedings, the defendant was charged and tried on the completed offense of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520c(1)(f); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(3)(1)(f).
Defendant first argues that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. While we do not agree with all of the defendant's arguments, we conclude that two of the complained-of acts constitute reversible error under the fair trial test. People v. Bairefoot, 117 Mich.App. 225, 228, 323 N.W.2d 302 (1982).
In cross-examining the defendant, the prosecutor improperly asked the defendant to comment upon the veracity of other witnesses:
While defense counsel objected to this line of questioning, he failed to raise the specific objection relied upon by the defendant on appeal. We will nevertheless consider the issue since we find that manifest injustice will otherwise result. People v. Williams, 114 Mich.App. 186, 199, 318 N.W.2d 671 (1982).
This Court has generally held it improper for a witness to comment or provide the jury an opinion on the credibility of another witness since matters of credibility are to be determined by the trier of fact. People v. Adams, 122 Mich.App. 759, 767, 333 N.W.2d 538 (1983), remanded with jurisdiction retained 417 Mich. 1073, 336 N.W.2d 751 (1983). While the cases enumerated this rule of law have generally involved opinions given by non-defendant witnesses on the credibility of another witness or upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant, People v. Row, 135 Mich. 505, 507, 98 N.W. 13 (1904); People v. Adams, supra; People v. Parks, 57 Mich.App. 738, 750, 226 N.W.2d 710 (1975); People v. Walker, 40 Mich.App. 142, 145, 198 N.W.2d 449 (1972), we find the rule applicable where the defendant is also a witness, thus precluding the prosecutor from requesting a defendant to comment upon the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses. Under the facts of this case, we cannot conclude that the improper cross-examination was harmless since this case involved a classic credibility contest between the complainant and the defendant and since the defendant was asked to comment on the veracity of all material witnesses as a definite pattern of prosecutorial strategy.
The prosecutor also commented as follows during his closing arguments:
Again, defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's comments at trial. In the interest of precluding any manifest injustice, however, we undertake appellate review. People v. Williams, supra.
This Court has twice considered the propriety of a prosecutor commenting to the jury that a defendant's presence in court provided the defendant an opportunity to fabricate testimony to make it significantly consistent with testimony of prosecution witnesses. People v. Fredericks, 125 Mich.App. 114, 335 N.W.2d 919 (1983), and People v. Smith, 73 Mich.App. 463, 470-471, 252 N.W.2d 488 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 803 (1977). In both cases, the prosecutor's comments related to each defendant's opportunity to hear testimony throughout the then-ongoing trial prior to testifying. In both cases, the defendants on appeal argued that such prosecutorial comment improperly infringed upon their constitutional right to be present at trial, U.S. Const., Am. VI; People v. Montgomery, 64 Mich.App. 101, 103, 235 N.W.2d 75 (1975), though neither defendant preserved that question for appellate review by objecting at trial. This Court held in both cases that the comments were improper and therefore error.
In Smith, however, the error was found to be harmless when viewed in light of the full summation given. We further note that the defendant in Smith was convicted of murder committed in the perpetration of a kidnapping, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and kidnapping, M.C.L. Sec. 750.349; M.S.A. Sec. 28.581. Significant evidence was introduced at trial tending to prove the defendant's guilt of these charges. Moreover, but for the comment on the defendant's opportunity to fabricate testimony, the prosecutor's summation in Smith was error free.
In Fredericks, this Court found that the error that occurred when the prosecutor commented upon the defendant's opportunity to fabricate testimony based on his presence in court could not be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Buckey
...beyond a reasonable doubt, writing that a timely objection could have cured any prejudice. People v. Buckey, 133 Mich.App. 158, 167, 348 N.W.2d 53 (1984) (Cynar, J., concurring in part). B. People v. Defendant McWhorter was charged and convicted of conspiracy to kidnap, M.C.L. Secs. 750.349......
-
People v. Badour
...of the prosecution witnesses. Although defendant had failed to object to the questioning, this Court had reversed. 133 Mich.App. 158, 166, 348 N.W.2d 53 (1984). The Supreme Court "We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was improper for the prosecutor to ask defendant to comment on the c......
-
People v. Suchy
...is critical, the prosecutor should refrain from asking the defendant for her opinion on such subjects. See also, People v. Buckey, 133 Mich.App. 158, 348 N.W.2d 53 (1984). The prosecutor should also avoid injecting issues broader than defendant's guilt or innocence into the trial, such as a......