Reversible error to impeach a witness with a conviction for murder

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).