People v. Ungurean

192 N.W.2d 342, 35 Mich. App. 143, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1421

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 23, 1971
• Docket: Docket 9037
• Status: Published

Opinions

R. B. Burns, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of uttering and publishing a forged check. MCLA § 750.249 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446).

On appeal defendant claims four points of error, of which only two will be discussed.

1. Defendant claims it was error for the prosecution to ask him if he had been sentenced to prison for 1-1/2 to 5 years for a similar offense.

2. Defendant claims it was error for the prosecution to ask questions pertaining to three other checks which were not introduced into evidence.

In People v. Nelson White (1970), 26 Mich App 35, this Court when faced with the issue of introducing sentence and sentence time into evidence ruled:

“While we must adhere to the rule that prior convictions are admissible for testing credibility, we see no reason to enlarge the rule to include prior sentences. * * *

“The introduction of the length of defendant’s prior sentence was reversible error.” (pp 39, 40)

The prosecutor’s question and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom according to the Nelson White case, “may have influenced the jury and denied the defendant the constitutional guarantee of a fair and impartial trial”.

As a general rule evidence of other distinct offenses is not admissible even though they are of the same kind of offense as the one charged. People v. Schweitzer (1871), 23 Mich 301; People v. Askar (1967), 8 Mich App 95; People v. Heiss (1971) 30 Mich App 126.

The people claimed at trial, and the trial judge sustained their claim, that the defense had opened the door to such questions by asking Detective Kennedy questions on cross-examination about the other three checks.

The defense did ask Detective Kennedy questions concerning the- three checks but as stated in People v. Eddington (1970), 23 Mich App 210, 231:

“A slight opening of the door by the defense should not permit the prosecution to swing it totally ajar.”

As the case will be remanded for a new trial it is suggested that both the people and the defendant refrain from questions concerning the three checks not introduced into evidence.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Fitzgerald, J., concurred.