PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM JAMES SHORT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 21, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 291912
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 08-004938-FH
WILLIAM JAMES SHORT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MURPHY, C.J., and METER and GLEICHER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right following his convictions by a jury of breaking and
entering, MCL 750.110, and receiving and concealing stolen property, MCL 750.535(3)(a).
Defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 30 to 180
months’ imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently with each other and
consecutively to time imposed for his parole violation. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly impeached him pursuant to
MRE 609 when the prosecutor referred to a crime for which defendant had been charged but not
convicted. We agree that the prosecutor’s question was improper but find that, because
defendant failed to preserve the issue by objecting on the pertinent basis during crossexamination, the issue must be reviewed for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.
People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). For a plain error to have affected
defendant’s substantial rights, the error must have been prejudicial, meaning it must have
affected the outcome of the case. People v Jones, 468 Mich 345, 356; 662 NW2d 376 (2003).
Under MRE 609, a witness’s credibility may be impeached with prior convictions.
People v Nelson, 234 Mich App 454, 460; 594 NW2d 114 (1999). However, absent certain
exceptions, a witness may generally not be impeached with prior arrests or charges that did not
result in convictions. People v Layher, 464 Mich 756, 766-767; 631 NW2d 281 (2001); People v
Falkner, 389 Mich 682, 695; 209 NW2d 193 (1973). Nor may a witness be questioned about
higher original charges that did not result in a conviction, whether the charges were reduced by
plea or at trial. Falkner, 389 Mich at 695.
Defendant’s presentence investigation report reveals that he was charged with two counts
of burglary in Hillsdale County on January 13, 1998. However, defendant ultimately pleaded
guilty to only one count of attempted second-degree home invasion in connection with these
-1-
incidents. It would appear, then, that the prosecutor, in referring to the Hillsdale incidents,
mistakenly questioned defendant about a charge for which he was not convicted. Nevertheless,
defendant has failed to show that the error was prejudicial or affected the outcome of his case.
Defendant volunteered his extensive criminal background at the beginning of his direct
testimony. Defendant did not mention the entire background to simply “beat the prosecution to
it.” Indeed, that could not have been the case, given that defendant admitted to crimes that
would have been inadmissible because of their remoteness in time, and given that the trial court
ruled before trial that only a limited number of prior convictions would be admitted. Defendant
freely stated that he had 13 prior felonies. His testimony was primarily in narrative form and
rambling. Many of his answers to even his own attorney’s questions were nonresponsive.
The case rested solely on the credibility of the witnesses. Defendant argued that he had
no idea that the model trains in question were stolen until after he became involved and that,
once he realized that his accomplice, Michael Nichols, had stolen the trains, he immediately
returned them to Nichols. For his part, Nichols implicated defendant in the entire process.
Nichols testified that the theft was defendant’s idea and that, although defendant did not actually
break and enter into the trailer, defendant helped to transport Nichols and the trains. It was
within the province of the jury to decide whom to believe. People v McKinney, 258 Mich App
157, 165; 670 NW2d 254 (2003). Given all the information the jury had, it is doubtful that the
prosecutor’s question regarding a prior offense for which defendant was charged but not
convicted would have swayed the jury. Because defendant has failed to demonstrate that the
outcome of the trial would have been different absent the prosecutor’s error, he has not
demonstrated plain error requiring reversal.
Defendant makes a similar argument on appeal regarding the prosecutor’s questioning
about a home invasion in Ingham County that was actually an attempted home invasion.
However, once again we cannot find that questioning about a “home invasion” versus an
“attempted home invasion” affected defendant’s substantial rights, especially when the jury had
already heard about defendant’s extensive felony record.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.