Opinion
No. 112293 (29).
December 7, 1999.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal and the prosecutor's response to this Court's March 31, 1999 order to show cause are considered. Leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
During appellant's trial on drunk driving charges, the arresting officer was called to the stand. The prosecutor asked him to repeat a conversation he had had with the accused at the time of the arrest. The officer did, but then added that the accused had twice before been arrested for drunk driving. This information was unsolicited and could not have been given to the jury under longstanding Michigan law. The error was likely not harmless, as it very well may have influenced the jury to convict appellant. Also, police witnesses have a "special duty" not to venture into forbidden areas of testimony. People v O'Brien, 113 Mich. App. 183, 209 (1982).
This Court has not addressed this special-duty doctrine. I believe it should do so. Also, with respect to the degree of error here, this improper testimony may have caused reversible prejudice to appellant's rights, even under the Court's new rule, which denotes much error as harmless. People v Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (1999). We need to "remind all prosecutors that their `duty to the public and the defendant obliges [them] to seek justice rather than convictions.'" United States v Forrest, 17 F.3d 916, 921 (CA 6, 1994), quoting United States v Perry, 512 F.2d 805, 807 (CA 6, 1975).
Cavanagh, J., concurs in the dissenting statement of Kelly, J.
Corrigan and Young, Jr., JJ. not participating.
Court of Appeals No. 201605.