People v. Pollard, 197 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Pollard, 197 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Florida (michctapp, 1975-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Florida
Mich. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
"As stated in People v Pollard, 39 Mich App 291, 292 [ 197 NW2d 546 ] (1972): " 'As a general proposition, the prior conviction record of a witness-including a defendant in a criminal case who takes the stand to testify in his own behalf — is admissible to impeach his credibility. * * * In contrast with People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294, 306 [ 193 NW2d 363 ] (1971), in this case the trial judge was not asked to exclude, in the exercise of discretion, reference to the defendant’s conviction record.’ "Where the trial judge’s discretion has not been invoked, there can be no abuse of that d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Moore
Mich. · 1974 · confidence medium
Cf. People v Trudeau, 385 Mich 276, 279-281 ; 187 NW2d 890 (1971); People v Roderick Walker, 27 Mich App 609 ; 183 NW2d 871 (1970). 6 Contrast State v Elkins, 245 Or 279 ; 422 P2d 250 (1966), and Caver v Kropp, 306 F Supp 1329 (ED Mich, 1969). 7 Cf. People v Turner, 390 Mich 7 ; 210 NW2d 336 (1973) (entrapment); People v White, 390 Mich 245 ; 212 NW2d 222 (1973) (double jeopardy), where this Court established standards higher than the Federal standards. 8 Similarly see People v Pollard, 39 Mich App 291 ; 197 NW2d 546 *436 (1972); People v Downs, 45 Mich App 130 ; 206 NW2d 241 (1973); People v …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
Mich. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
As stated in People v Pollard, 39 Mich App 291, 292 (1972): "As a general proposition, the prior conviction record of a witness—including a defendant in a criminal case who takes the stand to testify in his own behalf—is admissible to impeach his credibility. * * * In contrast with People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294, 306 (1971), in this case the trial judge was not asked to exclude, in the exercise of discretion, reference to the defendant’s conviction record.” Where the trial judge’s discretion has not been invoked, there can be no abuse of that discretion, and consequently no error.
People
v.
Pollard
Docket 10946.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Mar 22, 1972.
197 N.W.2d 546
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people., Cornelius Pitts, for defendant on appeal.
Levin, Brennan, Van Valkenbtjrg.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Levin, P. J.

The defendant, Eugene Pollard, appeals his conviction of leaving the scene of a fatal automobile accident. MCLA 257.617; MSA 9.2317.

The assignments of error concern (1) the cross-examination of the defendant — who took the stand in his own defense — concerning his prior conviction record; and (2) the prosecutor’s closing arguments.

As a general proposition, the prior conviction record of a witness — including a defendant in a criminal case who takes the stand to testify in his own behalf —is admissible to impeach his credibility. In this case the defendant’s trial lawyer brought out on direct examination that the defendant had previously been arrested and convicted of crime. In contrast with People v Farrar, 36 Mich App 294, 306 (1971), in this case the trial judge was not asked to exclude, in the exercise of discretion, reference to the defendant’s conviction record.

Nor do we find, on careful examination of the closing arguments, any merit in the contention that the prosecutor appealed to passion or prejudice in his closing arguments.

Affirmed.

All concurred.