People v. Yarbrough, Docket No. 109421
| Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 109421 |
| Citation | 183 Mich.App. 163,454 N.W.2d 419 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hank YARBROUGH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, and Lori Dawson, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Clarence B. Tucker, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before REILLY, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and CYNAR, JJ.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of felonious assault, M.C.L. Sec. 750.82; M.S.A. Sec. 28.277, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months to four years of imprisonment for felonious assault. That sentence was to be served consecutively to defendant's mandatory two-year sentence for felony-firearm. We granted defendant's application for leave to file a delayed appeal. We affirm.
Defendant claims that the trial court erred when it allowed the prosecutor to ask a defense witness if the witness had charges pending against him which arose out of the same incident. The court overruled defendant's objection to the question. Defendant relies on the following language contained in People v. Falkner, 389 Mich. 682, 695, 209 N.W.2d 193 (1973), to support his claim:
We hold that in the examination or cross-examination of any witness, no inquiry may be made regarding prior arrests or charges against such witness which did not result in conviction ....
Having reviewed Falkner, we believe that this language is overly broad and, instead, the general rule more appropriately stated is that evidence of arrests not resulting in convictions is inadmissible to impeach the credibility of a witness. Nonetheless, we believe that an exception to that rule exists where, as here, the evidence is being offered to show the witness' interest in the matter, his bias or prejudice, or his motive to testify falsely because that witness has charges pending against him which arose out of the same incident for which defendant is on trial. United States v. Musgrave, 483 F.2d 327, 338 (CA 5, 1973), cert. den., 414 U.S. 1023, 94 S.Ct. 447, 38 L.Ed.2d 315 (1973); State v. Ciulla, 115 R.I. 558, 351 A.2d 580 (1976). See also Anno.: Right to impeach witness in criminal case by inquiry or evidence as to witness' criminal activity for which witness was arrested or charged, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Layher
...the prior arrests or charges are used for the purpose of "impeaching" a witness' credibility. See, e.g., People v. Yarbrough, 183 Mich.App. 163, 164-165, 454 N.W.2d 419 (1990); People v. Westbrook, 175 Mich.App. 435, 437, 438 N.W.2d 300 (1989); Scott v. Hurd-Corrigan Moving & Storage Co., I......
-
People v. McGhee
...a witness about the extent of the bargain he received from the prosecution in exchange for his testimony. Citing People v. Yarbrough, 183 Mich.App. 163, 454 N.W.2d 419 (1990), defendant argues that because Northern thought he could be charged with conspiracy, his belief was relevant and "fa......
-
People v. Adams, Docket No. 125921
...(1989). However, because this issue is not identified in defendant's statement of issues, it is unpreserved. People v. Yarbrough, 183 Mich.App. 163, 165, 454 N.W.2d 419 (1990); also see Mitcham v. Detroit, 355 Mich. 182, 203, 94 N.W.2d 388 (1959). If the Supreme Court chooses to consider th......
-
People v. Hoffman
...preserve this claim for appeal by an objection below, nor did he raise it in his statement of issues presented. People v. Yarbrough, 183 Mich.App. 163, 454 N.W.2d 419 (1990). Relief will be granted only where the failure to review the question will result in manifest injustice. People v. Ke......