Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Rodgers

388 Mich. 513 (Mich. 1972)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Rodgers

29 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jenkins

    450 Mich. 249 (Mich. 1995)   Cited 71 times
    In Jenkins, the prosecution was allowed to improperly impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement by having an officer who took the statement read the entirety of the written memorandum of the witness's prior statement to the jury.

    Hill v Harbor Steel Supply Corp, 374 Mich. 194, 215; 134 N.W.2d 54 (1965); 2 Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence (14th ed), § 434, pp 749-750.People v Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513, 519; 201 N.W.2d 621 (1972). The prosecutor's method of impeachment in Rodgers resembled the method employed here.

  2. Moncrief v. Detroit

    398 Mich. 181 (Mich. 1976)   Cited 30 times
    In Moncrief, the court held that while res ipsa loquitur was appropriately applied to raise an inference of negligence by a bus driver in a personal injury suit for damages allegedly resulting from a bus accident, "where the passenger's testimony was generally confused and indefinite and testimony from [the] bus driver was specific and clear" the bus driver is not negligent.

    Further testimony based on the police report absent its qualification as an item of evidence as set forth above was properly disregarded by the trial court. People v Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513, 519; 201 N.W.2d 621, 624 (1972); McCormick, Evidence (2d ed), § 9. We mention in passing that MCLA 257.622; MSA 9.2322 and MCLA 257.624; MSA 9.2324 have no application in this case.

  3. People v. Rappuhn

    78 Mich. App. 348 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    In People v Rappuhn, 78 Mich. App. 348, 354-355; 260 N.W.2d 90 (1977), the Court held that it was necessary to instruct on movement merely incidental to an underlying lesser or co-equal offense even if no such offense was charged.

    The statement was hearsay, an extrajudicial statement by the court reporter who transcribed it offered to prove the truth of the thing said, and its admission as a past recollection recorded without proper foundation was error. People v Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513, 519; 201 N.W.2d 621, 624 (1972). If, on retrial, the statement is offered under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule, rather than being used to refresh present recollection, the court reporter who transcribed the statement, and not the assistant prosecutor who elicited it, shall be called as a witness.

  4. People v. Brassell

    64 Mich. App. 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 3 times

    " Applying the rule in Jaxon, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513, 519; 201 N.W.2d 621, 624 (1972), said: "The written memorandum was read to the jury.

  5. Barnett v. Hidalgo

    478 Mich. 151 (Mich. 2007)   Cited 185 times
    Holding that affidavit-of-merit requirement's purpose “is to deter frivolous medical malpractice claims by verifying through the opinion of a qualified health professional that the claims are valid”

    Furthermore, we disagree with the Court of Appeals that the affidavits of merit submitted by plaintiff are inadmissible as impeachment evidence. While evidence used exclusively for impeachment purposes is not substantively admissible without an independent basis, and therefore may not be introduced as an exhibit for the jury's consideration, People v Rodgers, 388 Mich 513, 519; 201 NW2d 621 (1972); People v Wythcerly, 172 Mich App 213, 220; 431 NW2d 463 (1988); People v Alexander, 112 Mich App 74, 77; 314 NW2d 801 (1981), here, the affidavits of merit are admissible into evidence because they are party-admissions. MRE 613, which sets forth a set of preconditions for impeachment, provides:

  6. Merrow v. Bofferding

    458 Mich. 617 (Mich. 1998)   Cited 61 times
    Upholding the admission of a statement in a patient's medical history regarding the cause of an injury even though the medical personnel could not identify the person who provided the history

    A previous inconsistent statement of a witness, admissible to impeach credibility, is not regarded as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is not offered as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the statement, but only to prove that the witness in fact made the statement. People v Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513; 201 N.W.2d 621 (1972). We first note that there are foundational problems concerning admission of the statement under this rule.

  7. State v. Butler

    207 Conn. 619 (Conn. 1988)   Cited 43 times
    In State v. Butler, 207 Conn. 619, 630, 543 A.2d 270 (1988), this court held that where a defendant fails to make a request to charge and does not except to the charge as given or ask for a supplemental charge, we shall not consider such claims on appeal. Even if we were to review this claim, however, it is meritless in that Ortiz' statements did not inculpate Diaz-Marrero, impair his defense in any way, or cause him any prejudice.

    The defendant argues, however, that the typewritten, unsigned statement was hearsay, relying principally on Judge Levin's dissenting opinion in People v. Rodgers, 36 Mich. App. 211, 220-31, 193 N.W.2d 412 (1971), which was adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court when it reversed the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513, 201 N.W.2d 621 (1972). In Rodgers, a police detective, over the objection of the defendant, read a memorandum containing a statement allegedly taken from a defense witness who never signed it. The trial court had admitted the statement under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule.

  8. People v. Mobley

    390 Mich. 57 (Mich. 1973)   Cited 25 times
    In Mobley, our Supreme Court held that on cross-examination an accomplice cannot invoke the privilege against self-incrimination about his involvement in the crime where on direct examination he has given testimony incriminating the defendant in a common criminal enterprise.

    "' For other analyses see People v Shirk, 383 Mich. 180; 174 N.W.2d 772 (1970) and People v Rodgers, 388 Mich. 513; 201 N.W.2d 621 (1972). Our analysis need not proceed further than the first question listed in Wichman.

  9. People v. Smith

    No. 341977 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 23, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Id. The report prepared by Schmaltz comprised hearsay because it involved an out of court statement by BB, and as such it was not admissible. Jenkins, 450 Mich at 256, citing People v Rodgers, 388 Mich 513, 519; 201 NW2d 621 (1972). The report "was an extra judicial statement [by Schmaltz] offered to prove the truth of the thing said (that [BB] had spoken the words imputed to [her])."

  10. People v. McKeever

    No. 315771 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2014)

    Because a written memorandum of an oral statement is itself hearsay, allowing the impeaching witness to read from the written memorandum of the statement constitutes the admission of hearsay, unless a proper foundation is laid for admission as past recollection recorded. As stated in People v Rodgers, 388 Mich 513, 519; 201 NW2d 621 (1972), the impeaching witness is not relating what he heard, but offering "an extrajudicial statement . . . to prove the truth ofthe thing said (that [the impeached witness] had spoken the words imputed to him).