People v. Tait

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Allen

    429 Mich. 558 (Mich. 1988)   Cited 123 times
    Clarifying the balancing test for theft crimes under the amended version of MRE 609 promulgated in Allen

    The majority also appears to overrule two prior pronouncements of this Court establishing the parameters for impeachment of nondefendant witnesses. People v Atkins #2, 406 Mich. 958 (1979); People v Tait, 136 Mich. App. 475; 356 N.W.2d 33 (1984). The question of the proper rule for nondefendant witnesses has neither been briefed nor argued here.

  2. State v. Swallow

    405 N.W.2d 29 (S.D. 1987)   Cited 24 times
    Allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Sixth Amendment right to counsel

    Davis is distinguishable from the case at hand on its facts and because it dealt with bias rather than credibility of a witness. State cites the case of People v. Tait, 136 Mich. App. 475, 356 N.W.2d 33 (1984), which is on point. Michigan's statute, like SDCL 19-14-12, fails to limit the balancing of the probative value against the prejudicial effect only to the defendant.

  3. State v. Eugene

    536 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1995)   Cited 10 times
    Holding the admission of evidence concerning a prior conviction, where the defendant did not object and the references to the conviction were brief, "did not likely have a substantial prejudicial effect"

    The crime of escape is generally recognized as not directly involving dishonesty or deception. See, e.g., Eng v. Scully, 146 F.R.D. 74, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); People v. Holt, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 557, 37 Cal.3d 436, 454-55, 690 P.2d 1207, 1217 (1984); People v. Tait, 136 Mich. App. 475, 356 N.W.2d 33, 36 (1984). Furthermore, the State did not attempt to admit Eugene's felony escape conviction under Rule 609(a)(ii), N.D.R.Ev., as a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.