The trial court committed reversible error by allowing testimony into evidence concerning the other items of identification and by permitting the prosecutor to clearly imply that the items were of a stolen nature. See also People v Campbell, 61 Mich. App. 600; 233 N.W.2d 103 (1975), People v Shannon, 88 Mich. App. 138; 276 N.W.2d 546 (1979). The evidence in the present case is too speculative to be admissible against the defendant under the res gestae rule.
Without more, use of the evidence by the prosecutor in this manner was improper. See People v Campbell, 61 Mich. App. 600; 233 N.W.2d 103 (1975). Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Testimony of prior acts may be admitted to show defendant's motive and intent, if the evidence is also relevant. People v Campbell, 61 Mich. App. 600, 604; 233 N.W.2d 103 (1975), People v Wood, 44 Mich. App. 99; 205 N.W.2d 66 (1972), People v Simon, 23 Mich. App. 64; 178 N.W.2d 106 (1970). The testimony was relevant to establish the "malice aforethought" even if not premeditation and deliberation.