People v. MacIntosh

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. MacIntosh

165 N.W.2d 895, 14 Mich. App. 755

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 1969

DocketDocket 4,480

StatusPublished

This text of 165 N.W.2d 895 (People v. MacIntosh) 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. MacIntosh, 165 N.W.2d 895, 14 Mich. App. 755 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s jury trial resulted in his conviction of robbery armed, MOLA § 750.529 *756 (Stat Ann 1968 Cnm Supp § 28.797); he was sentenced and he appeals.

At trial defendant took the stand and testified but only to establish a speech defect. He gave no testimony on direct examination relating to the crime. During cross-examination of defendant, the prosecuting attorney was permitted, over objection, to question defendant with respect to prior convictions. Defendant concedes that the statute, MOLA § 600.2158 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2158), permits such cross-examination to draw in question the credibility of defendant, but defendant contends such was not the purpose here.

A review of the trial transcript convinces this Court that the cross-examination of defendant with respect to his past convictions was not for the purpose of attacking his credibility. It was done to attack his character, which had not been put in issue by defendant. This practice is reversibly erroneous. People v. Boske (1922), 221 Mich 129.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

T. G-. Kavanagh, P. J., and Quinn and Miller, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s jury trial resulted in his conviction of robbery armed, MOLA § 750.529 *756 (Stat Ann 1968 Cnm Supp § 28.797); he was sentenced and he appeals.

At trial defendant took the stand and testified but only to establish a speech defect. He gave no testimony on direct examination relating to the crime. During cross-examination of defendant, the prosecuting attorney was permitted, over objection, to question defendant with respect to prior convictions. Defendant concedes that the statute, MOLA § 600.2158 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2158), permits such cross-examination to draw in question the credibility of defendant, but defendant contends such was not the purpose here.

A review of the trial transcript convinces this Court that the cross-examination of defendant with respect to his past convictions was not for the purpose of attacking his credibility. It was done to attack his character, which had not been put in issue by defendant. This practice is reversibly erroneous. People v. Boske (1922), 221 Mich 129.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

T. G-. Kavanagh, P. J., and Quinn and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 895, 14 Mich. App. 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-macintosh-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack