“Rule 803(8)(B)’s prohibition of the use, in criminal cases, of writings reflecting certain matters observed by law enforcement officers is premised upon the concern for a criminal defendant’s confrontation rights.”
How later courts described this case
- “Rule 803(8)(B)’s prohibition of the use, in criminal cases, of writings reflecting certain matters observed by law enforcement officers is premised upon the concern for a criminal defendant’s confrontation rights.”
- failure to make offer of proof precludes review of evidentiary issue absent manifest injustice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Fitzgerald, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding intimidation of a prosecution witness is unnecessary in this case. It appears that the majority’s reluctance to remand is based in large part on trial counsel’s failure to request the court to address the issue of intimidation as well as the jury’s awareness of the threats made to the witness. I do not believe that such factors preclude a finding of manifest injustice.
Prosecution intimidation of witnesses has been condemned, People v Pena, 383 Mich 402 ; 175 NW2d 767 (1970), whether the witnesses are for the defense or the prosecution. People v Crabtree, 87 Mich App 722 ; 276 NW2d 478 (1979). I believe that a testimonial record must be developed to support defendant’s argument on the issue and that remand for an evidentiary hearing is required. Pena, supra; People v Hooper, 422 Mich 875 ; 366 NW2d 6 (1985).