People v. Mumford

In People v. Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 150, 154; 455 NW2d 51 (1990), the Court reiterated the precepts in Bell, supra, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's request to cross-examine the former codefendant "on all of the details of the plea bargain, including the sentencing consideration the codefendant witness received in return for his testimony." In so holding, the Court directly addressed the countervailing rules that: (1) the jury should not be informed of the possible punishment, although; (2) a defendant has a right to introduce evidence of all relevant facts bearing upon the credibility of witnesses against him: The sentencing consideration received in return for testimony is undeniably a fact which is relevant to a witness' credibility, because it is "the crux of the plea agreement." People v. Manning, 434 Mich 1, 55-56, 450 NW2d 534 (1990), Levin, J, dissenting. Thus, strict adherence to the rule against informing the jury of defendant's possible punishment upon conviction deprives defendant in this case of the opportunity to present to the jury the most important fact of the witness' plea bargain. Application of the rule in this case not only deprives defendant of his constitutional right to confrontation but also leaves the matter to jury speculation. Neither of these results is acceptable. Mumford, supra at 153-154.