stand in his own defense in Michigan

2019People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 110 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995).

2019People v Fields, 450 Mich 94, 110 ; 538 NW2d 356 (1995).

2017Alibi testimony is “testimony offered for the sole purpose of placing the defendant elsewhere than at the scene of the crime.” People v McGinnis, 402 Mich 343, 345 ; 262 NW2d 669 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2017Alibi testimony is “testimony offered for the sole purpose of placing the defendant elsewhere than at the scene of the crime.” People v McGinnis, 402 Mich 343, 345 ; 262 NW2d 669 (1978) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

1983People v Smith, supra; People v Carroll, supra. In the present case, defendant’s motion for severance stated that defendant "may assert defenses which are inconsistent with the defenses of other individual codefendants”, that defendant "may take the stand in his own defense”, and that defendant "may * * * call certain or all his codefendants in order that they may be able to testify in his behalf’.

1982The court then further said: " ’The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra, cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra. Under these circumstances, we believe that People v McCartney [ 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975)], People v Killebrew [ 61 Mich App 129 ; 232 NW2d 329 (1975)] and People v Jones, supra, are in error in holding that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the probative value outweighs the possib

1982The court then further said: " ’The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra, cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra. Under these circumstances, we believe that People v McCartney [ 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975)], People v Killebrew [ 61 Mich App 129 ; 232 NW2d 329 (1975)] and People v Jones, supra, are in error in holding that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the probative value outweighs the possib

1982The court then further said: " ’The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra, cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra. Under these circumstances, we believe that People v McCartney [ 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975)], People v Killebrew [ 61 Mich App 129 ; 232 NW2d 329 (1975)] and People v Jones, supra, are in error in holding that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the probative value outweighs the possib

1982The court then further said: "` The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * *.' (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra , cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra .

1982The court then further said: " ’The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra, cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra. Under these circumstances, we believe that People v McCartney [ 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975)], People v Killebrew [ 61 Mich App 129 ; 232 NW2d 329 (1975)] and People v Jones, supra, are in error in holding that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the probative value outweighs the possib

1982The court then further said: " ’The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra, cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra. Under these circumstances, we believe that People v McCartney [ 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975)], People v Killebrew [ 61 Mich App 129 ; 232 NW2d 329 (1975)] and People v Jones, supra, are in error in holding that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the probative value outweighs the possib

1982The court then further said: " ’The burden of persuasion in this regard is on the accused; * * (Emphasis added.) "We would also note that the leading Michigan case of People v Jackson, supra, cites and places heavy reliance upon the cited Federal cases of Gordon and Luck, supra. Under these circumstances, we believe that People v McCartney [ 60 Mich App 620 ; 231 NW2d 472 (1975)], People v Killebrew [ 61 Mich App 129 ; 232 NW2d 329 (1975)] and People v Jones, supra, are in error in holding that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the probative value outweighs the possib

1973It is true that in People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294 (1971), this Court emphasized the discretionary role of the trial judge in allowing or excluding such an examination of a defendant who takes the stand in his own defense.

1971This does not, however, solve the question whether in the particular circumstances of this case the cross-examination should have been excluded because its probative value on the issue of Halperin’s credibility was so negligible as to be far outweighed by its possible impermissible impact on the jury.” The last pronouncement on this subject by the Michigan Supreme Court is set forth in the case of People v. McCrea (1942), 303 Mich 213 , which ruled that a defendant when he voluntarily takes the stand in his own defense waives his constitu *538 tional right to refuse to answer any questions whi

1971This rule was followed by our Court in the case of People v. Lloyd (1967), 5 Mich App 717, 722 .

1970CL 1948, § 600.2158 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2158); People v. Cybulski (1968), 11 Mich App 244 .

1970However, this Court had previously *493 held in People v. Waters (1969), 16 Mich App 33 , that if a trial judge on his own motion instructed the jury to the effect that no consideration should be given to defendant’s failure to take the stand in his own defense, it is not reversible error.

1969Both the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act (Rule 21; 9A ULA p 607) and the Model Code of Evidence (Rule 106), would eliminate the use of such evidence against a defendant in a criminal case unless he first introduces evidence admissible solely for the purpose of supporting his credibility and then would limit such evidence to convictions of a crime involving "dishonesty or false statement." It has been suggested that the present rule unconstitutionally chills a defendant's right to take the stand in his own defense [17] and that it "effects an *115 anomalous disinction between defendants with and

1969Both the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act (Rule 21; 9A ULA p 607) and the Model Code of Evidence (Rule 106), would eliminate the use of such evidence against a defendant in a criminal case unless he first introduces evidence admissible solely for the purpose of supporting his credibility and then would limit such evidence to convictions of a crime involving "dishonesty or false statement." It has been suggested that the present rule unconstitutionally chills a defendant's right to take the stand in his own defense [17] and that it "effects an *115 anomalous disinction between defendants with and

1969Both the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act (Rule 21; 9A ULA p 607) and the Model Code of Evidence (Rule 106), would eliminate the use of such evidence against a defendant in a criminal case unless he first introduces evidence admissible solely for the purpose of supporting his credibility and then would limit such evidence to convictions of a crime involving "dishonesty or false statement." It has been suggested that the present rule unconstitutionally chills a defendant's right to take the stand in his own defense [17] and that it "effects an *115 anomalous disinction between defendants with and

1943Our latest expression upon this subject is contained in People v. Crow, 304 Mich. 529 .

1942The case of People v. Prevost, supra, did not involve the question of immunity against self-incrimination under the State Constitution.