Impeachment evidence; MRE 613(b); Prosecutorial misconduct; Questioning about defendant’s prearrest conduct & silence; People v Goodin

Given that defendant failed to address the applicable MRE, the court found that he did not establish error as to impeachment evidence warranting relief. It also rejected his prosecutorial misconduct claim, concluding that the questioning he challenged concerned his prearrest conduct and silence. He was convicted of second-degree murder, FIP of a firearm and ammunition, and felony-firearm, second offense. As to the impeachment evidence issue, two witnesses (A and C) testified “about whether defendant had a gun on the day of the shooting. [A] testified that he had never seen defendant with a gun, and [C] gave varying accounts of whether she saw defendant with a gun—she testified on direct that she did not see” him or the victim (R) with a gun before R “was shot, then testified on cross-examination that she did not see defendant with a gun but saw [R] brandish a firearm, then later still testified that” both men had guns. The prosecution then called a police witness (T). Over defendant’s objection, T “testified that [A] told him in an interview that defendant had a pistol on the night of the shooting, and that defendant always had a pistol with him.” T also testified (over defendant’s objection) that C told him “during an interview that she did not see any guns because she fled the house as soon as the confrontation became apparent.” Defendant argued that T’s “testimony was improper impeachment evidence because it concerned specific instances of misconduct but did not meet the standard for admitting such testimony under MRE 608(b). But [T’s] contested testimony clearly did not concern specific instances of misconduct—he testified about the witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements. Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible under MRE 613(b).” Next, the court disagreed with his assertion that the prosecutor “was essentially questioning defendant about his silence,” in violation of his right against self-incrimination. “The prosecutor never referred to defendant’s remaining silent while in police custody. Because the prosecutor permissibly asked [him] about his silence before he had contact with police,” defendant did not “identify an instance of prosecutorial misconduct, let alone misconduct that deprived him of a fair trial.” Affirmed.