In People v Winbush, Unpub Per
Curiam Opin (#318213, 2/10/2015) the Court of Appeals held that the trial court
erred by admitting evidence for purposes of impeachment that a witness was convicted of murder. It is
undisputed that the crime of murder has no elements of dishonesty, false
statement, or theft. The fact that a witness committed murder is not admissible
for the purpose of attacking a witness’s credibility. And, while the amount of
time a witness is serving in jail may be relevant on issues of credibility, see
People v Clements, 91 Mich App 103, 108 (1979), the prosecutor did not
merely seek to admit evidence that the witness was serving a lengthy prison
term. Rather, the prosecutor sought to, and did, admit extensive evidence about
the witness’ murder conviction itself.
Evidence of a witness’s prior conviction
creates the danger that the jury “will misuse prior conviction evidence by
focusing on the [witness’s] general bad character, rather than solely on his
character for truthtelling.” People v Allen, 429 Mich 558, 569 (1988).
MRE 609 provides that, “[f]or the purposes of attacking the credibility of a
witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall not be
admitted” unless the crime meets certain requirements. The trial court may
admit evidence of a conviction only if the crime (1) contained an element of
dishonesty or false statement, or (2) contained an element of theft, was
punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, and, if the witness is the
defendant, the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial
effect. MRE 609(a)(1) and (2).
