People v. Dickerson
| Decision Date | 16 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 7626,1 |
| Citation | 30 Mich.App. 447,186 N.W.2d 850 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvin DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Carl Levin, Arthur J. Tarnow, Legal Aid and Defender Assn., Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Luvenia D. Dockett, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and HOLBROOK and VANDER WAL, * JJ.
The defendant was charged with second-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.317 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.549). He was convicted of that crime after a trial by jury.
On appeal he alleges first that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that they could consider the testimony of the prosecution's rebuttal witness only for impeachment purposes and not as substantive evidence. No objection on this basis was made at the time the witness was testifying. However, a request for such an instruction was made at the conclusion of the trial. The request was denied. Ordinarily, this would constitute reversible error. People v. Budary (1970), 22 Mich.App. 485, 497, 177 N.W.2d 672. In the present case it does not, because the rebuttal witness's testimony only went to the credibility of the defendant. The defendant had stated on the stand that he was not involved in a certain automobile accident on June 20, 1965. The rebuttal witness stated that the defendant told her that he was in an accident in June 1965. The deceased, with whom the defendant was living, died of a stab wound to the left chest inflicted on September 5, 1966. If taken as true, the testimony was not substantive evidence that the defendant committed the crime charged, but only that he was in an accident in June 1965. We find no reversible error.
Next it is argued that the trial court erred in allowing portions of the decedent's hospital records into evidence under the 'business records' exception to the hearsay rule. The 'business records' statute M.C.L.A. § 600.2146 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.2146), is not considered applicable in criminal cases because of an accused's constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. People v. Lewis (1940), 294 Mich. 684, 293 N.W. 907; People v. Gautheir (1970), 28 Mich.App. 318, 184 N.W.2d 488. However, in this case the defense counsel was the first to use the deceased's hospital records. On direct examination, a psychiatrist for the defense testified from the records as to matters contained therein, some of which were in his own handwriting and some of which were not. Upon cross-examination, defense counsel objected to the doctor testifying relative to any entry in the file that he had not personally made. On direct examination the defense counsel opened the door and under those circumstances we find no reversible error in the trial court's allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the witness about entries in the record that were made by another doctor.
It is also contended that it was reversible error for a police officer to testify, referring to the defendant, that 'He refused to make a statement.' Defense counsel made no objection to the testimony. The law is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kirtdoll
...Herrera, 12 Mich.App. 67, 162 N.W.2d 330 (1968) reversed on other grounds 383 Mich. 49, 173 N.W.2d 202 (1970) and People v. Dickerson, 30 Mich.App. 447, 186 N.W.2d 850 (1971) it was found that Lewis did not apply in cases where the defendant had sought to introduce the record, as in these c......
-
State v. Collins
...on this point will constitute reversible error. E.g., Brooks v. United States, 448 A.2d 253 (D.C.App.1982); People v. Dickerson, 30 Mich.App. 447, 186 N.W.2d 850 (1971); State v. Bottoms, 260 S.C. 187, 195 S.E.2d 116 (1973); Hall v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 369, 355 S.E.2d 591 (1987); Irby v. ......
-
Berrier v. Egeler
...for the trial judge to instruct the jury upon it. People v. Townes, 391 Mich. 578, 218 N.W.2d 136, 141 (1974); People v. Dickerson, 30 Mich.App. 447, 186 N.W.2d 850, 852 (1971); People v. Johnson, 13 Mich.App. 69, 163 N.W.2d 688, 691 (1968), Rev'd on other grounds, 382 Mich. 632, 172 N.W.2d......
-
People v. Meier
...had shot the decedent but to the credibility of Linda Chaput, and therefore no limiting instruction was needed. People v. Dickerson, 30 Mich.App. 447, 449, 186 N.W.2d 850 (1971). VII Was the prosecutor's closing argument so prejudicially improper as to deprive defendant of a fair Defendant ......