(concurring). I am in accord with Judge Holbrook’s disposition of this matter. I write separately solely to clarify my reasons for concluding that this conviction must be reversed.
First, it must be noted that the dissent fails to comment on the prosecution’s suggestion to the jury that they utilize defendant’s prior convictions as substantive evidence of his assaultive nature. While the prosecution may introduce evidence regarding defendant’s character to rebut evidence offered by the accused, MRE 404(a)(1); People v Roger Johnson, 382 Mich 632; 172 NW2d 369 (1969), cert den 397 US 1079; 90 S Ct 1533; 25 L Ed 2d 816 (1970), the defendant here had not placed his character in evidence. Thus, the prosecutor violated an established evidentiary rule by making this argument to the jury.
It is this improper argument, combined with the arguments apparently made to solicit the sympathy of the jury rather than identify the victim, as is argued, that persuades me that defendant was denied a fair trial.
Secondly, regarding the courtroom facilities, I believe it is important to note that both the prosecutor and the defendant vigorously complained of their inability to hear the witnesses because the public address system was not in operation, the ventilating machinery was next door, and there was construction work in progress on the floor immediately above the courtroom. There is no question but that the trial judge is best able to *277make the kind of a determination that we make today. However, where, as here, he concludes that counsel are correct: courtroom conditions are poor but that both sides are suffering equally, we are obliged to reverse. The proper test for the trial judges to apply in such an instance is whether the courtroom conditions are such as to deny defendant a fair trial. People v Hayes, 410 Mich 422; 301 NW2d 828 (1981). The record supports that such was the case here. Estes v Texas, 381 US 532; 85 S Ct 1628; 14 L Ed 2d 543 (1965).