¶1(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the search and seizure of the cycle without a warrant does not require suppression of the evidence that the cycle was stolen. However, I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion in which the majority concludes that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing defendant to be impeached with evidence of his *461977 conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property worth less than $100.
¶2In the present case, defendant was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property worth over $100. Defendant’s 1977 misdemeanor conviction was for receiving and concealing stolen property worth less than $100. Given the age of defendant’s prior conviction and its similarity to the charged offense, I believe the trial judge should have excluded evidence of the prior conviction under MRE 609(a)(2) because the prejudicial effect of admission of the evidence outweighed its probative value.
¶3In admitting the evidence of defendant’s prior conviction, the trial judge stated:
The jury I think could well use whatever information is available on the issue of credibility because otherwise I don’t know how they can adequately assess it.
¶4I concede that defendant’s credibility was an important issue in this case. However, given the closeness of the issue of defendant’s credibility, the jury was likely to resolve the issue merely because of the similarity of defendant’s prior conviction to the charged offense without fully recognizing that defendant’s prior conviction was for a misdemeanor that was eight years old. Stated otherwise, because the probative value of evidence of an eight-year-old misdemeanor conviction is limited while the prejudicial effect in this case is immense, the trial judge should have excluded evidence of the prior conviction.
¶5The fact that defendant’s credibility was an important issue in the case does not justify the admission of evidence of a prior conviction that *47should otherwise have been excluded. Since the defendant took the stand in this case, the jury could have resolved the credibility issue on the basis of defendant’s testimony and his demeanor.
¶6I would reverse.