People v. Ball

189 N.W.2d 816, 33 Mich. App. 288, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1745
CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 28, 1971
DocketDocket 9699
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 189 N.W.2d 816 (People v. Ball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Ball, 189 N.W.2d 816, 33 Mich. App. 288, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant James Ball was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny. MCLA 1971 Cum Supp § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.305). He appeals as of right claiming insufficient evidence was adduced at trial to sustain the conviction and that improper conduct of the prosecutor prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

Examination of the record reveals that evidence was introduced which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

On direct examination, defendant denied commission of the crime but admitted a previous conviction for larceny. On cross-examination the following transpired:

“Q. How big was your heroin habit at the time?
“A. I didn’t have a heroin habit.
“Q. Have you ever used heroin?
“A. No.
“Q. Have you ever requested to be taken to Detroit General Hospital with the heroin symptoms?
*290 “A. I asked to be taken to the hospital because I was sick.
* * #
“Q. Have you ever been convicted of the crime of using’ indecent and obscene language in the presence of a woman?
“A. Yes, while I was a juvenile.
“[Defense counsel’s objection was sustained; the jury was instructed to disregard the remarks.]”

We cannot condone the tactics of the prosecutor. The attempted injection of unfounded prejudicial innuendo into the proceedings is not consistent with the prosecutor’s duty to use only legitimate means to secure conviction. People v. Brocato (1969), 17 Mich App 277. Although the questions regarding defendant’s use of heroin were answered in the negative, we are not persuaded that undue prejudice to the defendant did not result.

Introduction of juvenile records for impeachment purposes has been held reversible error. People v. Warren (1970), 23 Mich App 20. Under the juvenile offenders statute such records are inadmissible for any purpose. MCLA § 712A.23 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3178[598.23]). In the event of a retrial, no reference to defendant’s record while a juvenile shall be allowed.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Kosters
438 N.W.2d 651 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Burrell
339 N.W.2d 239 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Squire
333 N.W.2d 333 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Williams
318 N.W.2d 671 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Moreno
317 N.W.2d 201 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. Turner
298 N.W.2d 848 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Walker
272 N.W.2d 222 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1978)
People v. Mitchell
232 N.W.2d 340 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. Goolsby
210 N.W.2d 781 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
People v. Margaret Jones
210 N.W.2d 396 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
People v. Henderson
209 N.W.2d 326 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
People v. Farrar
193 N.W.2d 363 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 N.W.2d 816, 33 Mich. App. 288, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ball-michctapp-1971.