People v. Ferrier
463 Mich. 1007, 624 N.W.2d 736 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Michigan Supreme Court declined to definitively establish whether the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property inherently involves an element of dishonesty for impeachment purposes under MRE 609(a)(1), by denying applications for leave to appeal.
Facts:
- The case text does not provide specific facts regarding the underlying events or conviction of Keith Eldon Ferrier that led to the legal dispute. The core legal questions presented concern the interpretation and application of MRE 609(a)(1) to the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith Eldon Ferrier was likely convicted of an offense in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The case proceeded to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on September 26, 2000, and ordered further proceedings.
- The People of the State of Michigan (Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee) filed an application for leave to appeal that Court of Appeals decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
- Keith Eldon Ferrier (Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant) also filed a cross-application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, appealing aspects of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property, M.C.L. § 750.535, inherently entail an element of dishonesty for impeachment purposes under MRE 609(a)(1), or is it more precisely viewed as a crime of theft? 2. If a defendant can commit the crime of 'receiving and concealing' without being inherently dishonest, should a prior conviction for this offense be admissible for impeachment purposes if the defendant's particular conduct did, in fact, contain an element of dishonesty?
Opinions:
Denial of leave to appeal - Per Curiam
The Court declined to address the questions presented. The application for leave to appeal filed by the People was DENIED because the Court was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals and any subsequent review by that court. Similarly, Keith Eldon Ferrier's application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant was DENIED, as the Court was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed.
Dissenting - Markman, J.
No, the Michigan Supreme Court should have granted leave to appeal to consider whether the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property, M.C.L. § 750.535, inherently involves an element of dishonesty within the meaning of MRE 609(a)(1), or if it is solely a crime of theft. Justice Markman argued that the Court's earlier decision in People v. Allen did not dispositively resolve this issue, as Allen involved numerous consolidated cases but none related to receiving and concealing stolen property. MRE 609(a)(1) provides that prior convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statements are admissible for impeachment purposes without further consideration, while prior convictions for theft crimes not involving dishonesty or false statements are admissible only if their probativeness outweighs their prejudice. Justice Markman emphasized that 'receiving and concealing' is a 'conjunctive' offense, meaning it can be satisfied by 'receiving' or 'concealing' stolen property. He noted that while merely 'receiving' might not always involve dishonesty, 'concealing' almost always does. He questioned why a person who committed the crime by 'concealing' should invariably be treated as having committed a theft offense for impeachment purposes, especially when the specific conduct involved dishonesty. He further suggested that the Court needs to explain why crimes like embezzlement, which Allen listed as involving dishonesty, should always be treated differently from 'receiving and concealing,' particularly since embezzlement can also be committed in a manner akin to a theft offense.
Analysis:
This case highlights a significant unresolved question in Michigan evidence law concerning the classification of 'receiving and concealing stolen property' for impeachment purposes. By denying leave, the Supreme Court postponed providing a definitive interpretation of MRE 609(a)(1) as applied to this specific crime, leaving lower courts and practitioners without clear guidance on whether such convictions are always admissible as crimes of dishonesty or require a balancing test as theft crimes. Justice Markman's dissent underscores the complexity of classifying 'conjunctive' offenses and whether the manner in which a crime is committed should influence its categorization under the rules of evidence, suggesting a need for a more nuanced approach to MRE 609(a)(1) application.
