93 Mich. App. 573 | Mich. Ct. App. | 1979
Lead Opinion
The defendant appeals as of right from his conviction by jury of the charge of delivery of heroin, MCL 335.341(l)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(a).
The basis of the charges against the defendant stemmed from an alleged heroin purchase at a barbershop by an addict-informer named Douglas King. Despite objections by defense counsel, Mr. King was allowed to testify that he had made approximately 20-25 prior purchases of heroin from the defendant. The defendant, testifying on his own behalf, denied participation in the alleged sale, or in any sale of drugs on a prior occasion. The defendant was impeached by evidence of a prior conviction for burglary.
On appeal, the defendant conteiids that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence testimony regarding defendant’s prior bad acts. We agree.
In People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260, 267-270; 266 NW2d 781 (1978), we found that it is erroneous to admit evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts unless: (1) there is substantial evidence
The instant case fails to satisfy all of the factors mentioned in Wilkins, supra, especially the third. See People v Rustin, 406 Mich 527; 280 NW2d 448 (1979), where the Supreme Court recently held that admission of testimony by an undercover agent concerning a prior sale of narcotics by the defendant constituted reversible error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring). I concur separately based on People v Rustin, 406 Mich 527; 280 NW2d 448 (1979).
