People v. Pedrin
| Decision Date | 20 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 67017 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Allen PEDRIN, Defendant-Appellant. 130 Mich.App. 86, 343 N.W.2d 243 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[130 MICHAPP 87] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., James P. Hoy, Pros. Atty., and Jann Ryan Baugh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
State Appellate Defender by Rolf E. Berg, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, P.J., and BEASLEY and CLEMENTS, * JJ.
Defendant, Jeffrey Allen Pedrin, was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering an unoccupied building with intent to commit larceny, contrary to M.C.L. Sec. 750.110; M.S.A. Sec. 28.305. Defendant was sentenced to serve not less than four nor more than 10 years in prison. He now appeals as of right, raising one issue; namely, that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach defendant's credibility by the use of evidence of a prior breaking and entering conviction.
Prior to trial, the prosecutor filed a motion seeking permission to impeach defendant by the use of his prior conviction for a similar offense. Defendant was released from prison for time served for the previous offense on June 7, 1982, and went to his father's home outside of Newberry, Michigan, in the upper peninsula. Defendant was arrested between 8:15 and 8:30 a.m. on June 8, 1982, while sleeping on the front porch of his ex-wife's home. The police came to that location[130 MICHAPP 88] when called by his ex-wife, who testified that defendant had come to her home around 6 a.m. and attempted to open the door. She testified that she talked with him and that he told her that he "just took a car". She further testified that when he lay down on the front porch and went to sleep, she called the police.
There was testimony of an automobile dealer that a 1983 Ranger pickup truck was stolen from his garage during the night of June 7, 1982. A state trooper testified that he found the truck ignition key in the yard of defendant's ex-wife, approximately 50 feet from the sidewalk and 10 to 15 feet from the side porch of defendant's ex-wife's home. The stolen pickup truck was found parked one and three-quarters blocks away from the home of defendant's ex-wife.
The trial judge heard oral argument on the prosecutor's motion, recognized on the record that it was within his discretion whether or not to permit impeachment by the use of evidence of the prior conviction, and stated that he realized that the similarity of the previous conviction with the offense here charged against defendant militated against admission of such evidence for impeachment, but that he concluded that, since the previous offense involved dishonesty, he was going to permit its use for impeachment.
Defendant claims that he then chose not to testify for fear that the jury would assume, that because he had previously committed a breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny of jewelry, he was a "bad man" and, therefore, guilty of the breaking and entering here charged. Thus, a classical and typical impeachment by prior conviction issue is raised.
Prior convictions may be used to impeach a [130 MICHAPP 89] testifying witness if the trial court, in an exercise of its discretion, determines that "the probative value of admitting this evidence on the issue of credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect and articulates on the record the factors considered in making the determination". 1
The discretion of the trial court is limited by the guidelines articulated in People v. Jackson. 2 The factors to be considered are (1) the nature of the prior offense, (2) whether the prior offense is for substantially the same conduct for which the accused is on trial, and (3) the effect on the decisional process if the accused does not testify from fear of impeachment by prior convictions. An appellate court will scrutinize the trial court's application of these factors. 3
The trial court found that the nature of the prior offense, theft, weighed in favor of its admissibility. Defendant argues that the prior larceny conviction does not directly relate to veracity. This Court, however, has indicated that convictions involving theft are especially probative on the issue of who is telling the truth. 4
Defendant's previous conviction, breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, was the same offense as that with which he was charged in the present action. As the trial court recognized, similarity is a factor weighing against admissibility. 5 The inherent danger of admitting evidence of a conviction for the same offense is that the jury will consider the prior conviction as direct evidence[130 MICHAPP 90] of guilt rather than an impeachment of the credibility of the defendant. 6 Nevertheless, the rule is not invariable. On the contrary, the trial court still has discretion to allow impeachment by evidence of an identical prior conviction if there is reason to conclude that the probative value of the conviction outweighs the prejudicial effect. 7
At the suppression hearing, defense counsel indicated that defendant said he wished to take the stand so he could explain that he hitchhiked from Newberry to Munising and did not drive the stolen pickup truck there. Although the trial court recognized that defendant had no apparent alternative means of presenting this claimed defense and that this fact militated against his impeachment by the prior conviction, the court gave more weight to the fact that if defendant did testify he would be telling an unsupported story and his credibility, therefore, would be a critical issue.
As defendant aptly notes, in every case where a defendant has no alternative means of presenting a defense, credibility will be important. The prior conviction in this case was highly probative on the issue of credibility. It was a theft offense, the only difference being that in the prior conviction defendant was convicted of stealing jewelry and in the present case he was accused of stealing an automobile. The fact that the prior conviction was very close in time to the present charge enhances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen
...term of imprisonment of four to ten years. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on October 25, 1983. People v. Pedrin, 130 Mich.App. 86, 343 N.W.2d 243 (1983). The prosecutor filed a pretrial motion seeking permission to impeach the defendant with evidence of his prior convic......
-
People v. Finley
...Commonwealth v. Richardson, 500 A.2d 1200 (Pa.Super., 1985). The issue is presently before our Supreme Court in People v. Pedrin, 130 Mich.App. 86, 343 N.W.2d 243 (1983), lv. gtd. 422 Mich. 972 (1985).2 MRE 609(a) is a slightly modified version of FRE 609(a). We do not find the modification......
-
People v. Frey
...98 Mich.App. 421, 427-435, 296 N.W.2d 268 (1980); People v. Casey, 120 Mich.App. 690, 693-697, 327 N.W.2d 337 (1982); People v. Pedrin, 130 Mich.App. 86, 343 N.W.2d 243, aff'd. 429 Mich. 558, 420 N.W.2d 499 (1988); People v. Johnson, 133 Mich.App. 150, 155-156, 348 N.W.2d 716 (1984). But se......
-
People v. Davis
...conviction for larceny in a building. As a theft offense, the conviction was probative of defendant's credibility. People v. Pedrin, 130 Mich.App. 86, 343 N.W.2d 243 (1983); People v. Jones, 98 Mich.App. 421, 432, 296 N.W.2d 268 (1980). That conviction was only somewhat similar to the charg......