People v. Buffa
| Decision Date | 05 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 15657,3 |
| Citation | 216 N.W.2d 494,51 Mich.App. 680 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph C. BUFFA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Walter M. Marks, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before T. M. Burns, P.J., and Holbrook and McGregor, JJ.
Defendant was arrested on a charge of prison escape; trial was held on September 7, 1972, and defendant was convicted by a jury of escape from the Michigan Reformatory at Ionia, M.C.L.A. § 750.193; M.S.A. § 28.390.
At trial, defendant testified that his life had been threatened on two separate occasions by another inmate brandishing a pipe and a knife, and that these threats were the sole reason for his escape.
On the date set for sentencing, the prosecutor filed an amended information, charging defendant under the habitual offender statute, M.C.L.A. § 769.10; M.S.A. § 28.1082. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to this charge and received a consecutive sentence of from 3 1/2 to 7 years.
In his brief on appeal, defendant has favored us with a host of issues. Because we find consideration of one dispositive, we refrain from expressing our views with respect to the remainder.
The decisive question to be answered is whether reversible error was committed, during the people's case in chief, by the admission into evidence of testimony regarding defendant's prior criminal conduct.
During his case in chief, the prosecutor called as a witness the police officer who arrested the defendant on the prison escape charge in Warren, Michigan, on January 27, 1972. During the direct examination of this witness, the following transpired:
'
'A. Joseph Buffa.
'Q.--did you have any indication that he might be there by anything you saw outside the house?
The truck to which the officer alluded had been stolen by defendant at the time of his escape from the reformatory at Ionia and used by him to flee to Macomb County. The record and briefs filed in this Court indicate that, prior to trial on the escape charge, the defendant had been convicted in Macomb County of receiving and concealing stolen property in connection with the theft of the truck.
During redirect examination of the police officer by the prosecuting attorney, the following exchange took place:
'
'MR. McNAMARA: May it please the Court, I'm going to object to any other hearings in his own community.
'MR. MARKS: Was this other hearing concerned with him as a subject or as a witness?
(Emphasis added.)
This Court is compelled to agree with defendant's assertion that the admission of the testimony (italicized above) referring to the witness's observation of the defendant at some other hearing concerning the defendant as a subject was reversible error.
It is true, as plaintiff asserts, that the testimony in question did not convey to the jury the impression that defendant was convicted of stealing the truck. Nonetheless, it seems evident to this Court that the testimony, either intentional or inadvertent, indicated to the jury that the defendant was the subject of some distinct criminal prosecution. Such evidence regarding defendant's prior criminal involvement is highly prejudicial and, hence, inadmissible until such time as the defendant takes the witness stand and raises the issue of his character or credibility, or unless such evidence is material and relevant to some other issue being tried. People v. Gardner, 37 Mich.App. 520, 195 N.W.2d 62 (1972); see also McCormick, Evidence (2d ed), § 190, p. 447 et seq.
Plaintiff urges, however, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Handley
...People v. Greenway, 365 Mich. 547, 114 N.W.2d 188 (1962); People v. Deblauwe, 60 Mich.App. 103, 230 N.W.2d 328 (1975); People v. Buffa, 51 Mich.App. 680, 216 N.W.2d 494 [135 MICHAPP 62] (1974); People v. Budary, 22 Mich.App. 485, 177 N.W.2d 672 (1970); People v. Slater, 21 Mich.App. 561, 17......
-
People v. Stinson, Docket No. 51184
...as the defendant takes the witness stand and raises the issue of his [113 MICHAPP 727] character or credibility. People v. Buffa, 51 Mich.App. 680, 683, 216 N.W.2d 494 (1974), MRE 404. However, an unresponsive, volunteered answer to a proper question is not cause for granting a mistrial. Pe......
-
People v. Lutzke
...otherwise admissible, a defendant's prior arrest or other acts of misconduct (bad check) should not be mentioned. People v. Buffa, 51 Mich.App. 680, 216 N.W.2d 494 (1974); People v. Deblauwe, 60 Mich.App. 103, 230 N.W.2d 328 (1975). Testimony of a police officer as to the contents of an ano......
-
People v. Tillman, Docket No. 18998
...evidence of an accused's prior convictions is generally inadmissible when he chooses not to testify at trial. People v. Buffa, 51 Mich.App. 680, 683, 216 N.W.2d 494 (1974). However, under the facts of this case, the beneficial effect of this rule does not apply to defendant. A review of the......