People v. Sams

Full title: PEOPLE v SAMS

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 27, 1976

71 Mich. App. 337 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)

248 N.W.2d 262

Opinion

Docket No. 25045.

Decided September 27, 1976. Rehearing granted November 17, 1976.

Appeal from Detroit Recorder's Court, Joseph A. Gillis, J. Submitted June 1, 1976, at Detroit. (Docket No. 25045.) Decided September 27, 1976. Rehearing granted Nov. 17, 1976.

Charles Sams was convicted of unarmed robbery. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Patricia J. Boyle, Principal Attorney, Research, Training and Appeals, and Timothy A. Baughman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Bolden Blake, P.C., for defendant.

Before: QUINN, P.J., and D.F. WALSH and A.M. BACH,^_ JJ.

_ Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

A.M. BACH, J.

Defendant was charged with robbery not armed and found guilty. Defendant raises the objection that the proper foundation was not laid for the admission of a prior inconsistent statement made by defendant. This Court finds that a proper foundation was not laid and defendant was thereby prejudiced and it was not cured by a later admission of the entire document. People v Dozier, 22 Mich. App. 528, 531-532; 177 N.W.2d 694 (1970), People v Goree, 30 Mich. App. 490; 186 N.W.2d 872 (1971).

Reversed and new trial granted.

QUINN, P.J., concurred.

D.F. WALSH, J. (dissenting).

I would affirm the trial court. The requirements of People v Dozier, 22 Mich. App. 528; 177 N.W.2d 694 (1970), apply only to oral statements. In this case the statements in question were in writing, and the writing was introduced into evidence. Cf. Lightfoot v People, 16 Mich. 507 (1868), Hamilton v People, 29 Mich. 195 (1874), People v Plummer, 37 Mich. App. 657; 195 N.W.2d 328 (1972).

It was improper for the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant regarding the contents of his statement before its introduction into evidence. Lightfoot, supra, at 512-513. In my judgment, however, the defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of this error since he had identified his signature, read the statement and offered his own explanation for the discrepancies. There being no miscarriage of justice the conviction should not be set aside. MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096.