People v. Sullivan, Docket No. 8024
| Decision Date | 30 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 8024,3 |
| Citation | 188 N.W.2d 247,32 Mich.App. 181 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Edward J. Hackett, Battle Creek, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., John M. Jereck, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and T. M. BURNS, JJ.
Defendant Gilbert Sullivan was tried by a jury and on April 11, 1966, he was convicted of robbery armed, a violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.797). The defendant did not take the stand in his own defense. He was subsequently sentenced to serve 10 to 20 years in the State Prison. Delayed leave having been granted, defendant now appeals from the decision of the court.
It is argued that references by one of the prosecution's witnesses to defendant's previous imprisonment was so prejudicial that the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial. It is a well-recognized rule in Michigan that it is highly prejudicial for the jury to be informed of a previous conviction of the defendant. People v. Fleish (1948), 321 Mich. 443, 32 N.W.2d 700; People v. Greenway (1962), 365 Mich. 547, 114 N.W.2d 188.
Based on the record before us, we concur with the Court in United States v. Smith (C.A.6, 1968), 403 F.2d 74, 77, which also addressed itself to remarks concerning the defendant's previous imprisonment. In its opinion, the Court stated:
The instruction, in view of the facts of this case, was insufficient to remove any possible prejudice which might have existed in the juror's minds.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gardner, Docket No. 9716
...of cases. One line of authority holds that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial. People v. Sullivan, 32 Mich.App. 181, 188 N.W.2d 247 (1971); People v. Matthews, 17 Mich.App. 48, 169 N.W.2d 138 (1969). Other decisions have ruled that there was no need to grant ......
-
People v. Jones, Docket No. 14432
...v. Van Wie, 17 Mich.App. 77, 169 N.W.2d 160 (1969); People v. McPherson, 21 Mich.App. 385, 175 N.W.2d 828 (1970); People v. Sullivan, 32 Mich.App. 181, 188 N.W.2d 247 (1971); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (CA 6, 1968). The prosecution does not argue that the reference was not error, b......
-
People v. Compian
...is material and relevant to the issue being raised. People v. Fleish, 321 Mich. 443, 32 N.W.2d 700 (1948); People v. Sullivan, 32 Mich.App. 181, 188 N.W.2d 247 (1971); People v. McPherson, 21 Mich.App. 385, 175 N.W.2d 828 The issue being raised in the instant case is whether defendant was i......
-
People v. Deblauwe, Docket No. 18121
...not testify in his own behalf, the excerpt could not properly be introduced to impugn the defendant's credibility. People v. Sullivan, 32 Mich.App. 181, 188 N.W.2d 247 (1971); People v. McCartney, 46 Mich.App. 691, 208 N.W.2d 547 (1973); People v. Wallen, 47 Mich.App. 612, 209 N.W.2d 608 (1......