Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, contrary to MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment and now appeals as of right.
Only one issue raised by defendant in his brief on appeаl merits discussion by this Court.
Defendant contends that the irial сourt committed reversible error by failing to exercise its discretion in response to defense cоunsel’s motion to suppress defendant’s prior cоnvictions. We agree.
Prior to the commencement of trial, defense counsel moved that the criminal record of defendant be suppressed in the event that defendant testified. Defense counsel advised the trial court that defendant had three previous felonies. The prosecutor argued thаt if the defendant’s prior convictions were to be suppressed, the defense should not be permitted to cross-examine the prosecution’s chief witness about her previous convictions. Defense counsel would not agree to refrain *183 from impeaching the witness. The trial court responded to the motion in the following manner:
"The Court: Well, I will rule that it will remain that way. Either they both come in or they both state [sic] out and you decide which way you want to do it.”
MCL 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159 provides in part that:
"No pеrson shall be disqualified as a witness in any civil or criminal сase or proceeding by reason of his interest in the event of the same as a party or othеrwise or by reason of his having been convicted оf any crime; but such interest or conviction may be shоwn for the purpose of affecting his credibility.”
The fоregoing provision has been interpreted to рrovide that the trial judge may, in the exercise of his disсretion, exclude reference to defendant’s prior convictions.
1
Upon proper motion, the trial judge must recognize that he/she has such discretion, and failure to do so constitutes reversible error.
People v Jackson,
Also, in order to comply with
Jackson, supra,
the trial judge must positively indicate and identify his/her еxercise of discretion on the record.
People v Cherry,
In the instаnt case, the trial court recognized that it had discretion to permit or disallow impeachment of defendant via his prior convictions, but failed to еxercise this discretion. Instead, the trial court left the decision to the parties.
*184 The trial court’s delеgation of its discretionary powers to the parties constitutes reversible error.
Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial. Upon remand the trial court should, upon request and due consideration of the factors cited in Jackson, supra, exercise its discretion to dеcide whether to exclude any reference to defendant’s prior conviction record.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Notes
People v Jackson,