Dеfendant appellant and another were tried and convicted in the rеcorder’s court of the city of Detroit under an information charging that they did knowingly accept and receive a certain sum of money without consideration from the proceeds of a woman engaged in prostitution. Said infоrmation was based on the provisions of CL 1948, § 750-.457 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.712). At the time of the commission оf the alleged offense appellant was a clerk in a certain hоtel in the city of Detroit, and the other defendant was employed as a hell boy. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to both defendants, sentence was impоsed, and Di Paolo has appealed claiming that because of сertain alleged prejudicial errors occurring in the course of the trial he should be granted a new trial.
Appellant was a witness in his own behalf, denying his guilt of thе offense charged against him. He was cross-examined at some length with particular reference to prior convictions. That the people had the right to such cross-examination, if properly conducted, is not open to question, the purpose being to assist the jury in determining the credibility of defеndant as a witness in his own behalf.
People
v.
Foley,
“Q. All right. Now, you testified you had been in Erie, Pennsylvania, in 1950, is that cоrrect?
“A. Yes, sir. * * '*
“Q. You also testified you had been convicted of only 1 crime, is that сorrect?
“A. Yes, sir.
*396 “Q. I will ask you whether or not on the 23d day of November, 1940, you were convicted óf rape in Erie, Pennsylvania?
“A. I was no convicted. I, — this is very important to me to make statement about this. I, —
“Q. The answer is either ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
“A. No, sir.
“Q. So if the police records show that, they are wrong?
“A. Yes, sir.”
After some further questions relating to defendant’s- рast conduct- counsel again referred to the alleged offense in Pennsylvania, and the following occurred:
“Q. You deny the rape in Pennsylvania?
“A. No deny. I was find no guilty. No rape.
“Q. So if the record shows you were cоnvicted of rape in Pennsylvania, then this record is wrong?
“A; Yes, sir.”
At this point the attorney rеpresenting the appellant’s codefendant moved for a mistrial, aрparently pn the theory that the cross-examination was materially prejudicial to both of the accused men. The motion was denied and the trial рroceeded, with the result indicated.
' No attempt was made by the people to establish that Di Paolo had in fact been convicted of the crime of rape in the State of Pennsylvania. The question asked, couplеd with the referénce to the police records, was well calculated to cause the jury'to conclude that such conviction had occurred and that police records showed such to be the fact. The jury might-have concluded ■ from .the questions', of the assistant prosecutor, and the subsequent rеpetition thereof, that appellant was falsifying with reference to the' commission of a very serious crime in another State. As before stated, hе denied his guilt of the offense charged against him in recorder’s court,
*397
Ms statements being directly in contradiction to the testimony of the principal witness agаinst him, the alleged prostitute. Obviously the determination as to appellant’s сredibility was of material importance. The conclusion may not be avoided that the question asked and repeated with reference to the рolice records constituted prejudicial error requiring the reversal of the conviction and the granting of a new trial.
People
v.
Jones,
In view of the conclusion reached on the principal assignment of error, it is unnecessary to considеr other claims advanced in appellant’s behalf involving occurrences that in all probability will not be repeated on a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.