The following is the Syllabus issued by the Michigan Supreme Court in the Ottawa County base, People v. Hall. To read the full opinion or to get more information, visit http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2015-2016/Pages/150677.aspx?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=31159972 and click on the appropriate link.
Michigan Supreme Court, Lansing, Michigan Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr.
Justices:
Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Joan L. Larsen
Reporter of Decisions:
Corbin R. Davis
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
PEOPLE v HALL
Docket No. 150677.
Argued on application for leave to appeal January 13, 2016.
Decided June 29, 2016.
Brandon M. Hall was charged in the 58th District Court with 10 felony counts of forgery under MCL 168.937 after stipulating to having filled in false names, addresses, and signatures on petitions to nominate a prospective judicial candidate.
The prosecutor moved to bind the case over to the Ottawa Circuit Court for trial. Defendant objected, arguing that the facts supported only misdemeanor charges under MCL 168.544c. The district court, Bradley S. Knoll, C.J., denied the motion for bindover on the felony charges but ruled that there was probable cause to proceed to trial on 10 misdemeanor counts under MCL 168.544c(8), which prohibits an individual from signing a petition with a name other than his or her own. On appeal by the prosecution, the circuit court, Jon A. Van Allsburg, J., affirmed, ruling that MCL 168.544c and MCL 168.937 conflicted and that MCL 168.544c was controlling because MCL 168.544c was the more recent and specific statute governing defendant’s conduct. The Court of Appeals, BORRELLO, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ., affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam issued October 23, 2014 (Docket No. 321045), and the prosecutor appealed. The Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. 497 Mich 1023 (2015).
In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice YOUNG, the Supreme Court held:
The lower courts erred by concluding that MCL 168.544c and MCL 168.937 conflict. When construed as a substantive offense, MCL 168.937 prohibits forgery, or the making of a false document under the Michigan Election Law with the intent to defraud, and punishes forgery as a felony. MCL 168.544c, a misdemeanor offense, proscribes the specific act of signing another’s name to a nominating petition and does not require proof of a specific intent to defraud. If proved, the facts as alleged in this case establish that defendant violated both statutes.
Prosecuting defendant for felonies committed in violation of MCL 168.937 was barred neither by tie-breaking canons of statutory interpretation nor principles of due process.
1. The prosecution did not abuse its discretion by charing defendant with the felony offense of forgery under MCL 168.937 rather than the misdemeanor offense of falsifying nominating petitions under MCL 168.544c. Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding under which statute they will prosecute a defendant, even if more than one statute is applicable. Both MCL 168.937 and MCL 168.544c can be given full effect without a conflict. Given the Court of Appeals’ unchallenged holding that MCL 168.937 is a substantive offense, MCL 168.937incorporates the common-law definition of forgery and therefore requires proof of specific intent to defraud. MCL 168.544c(8) does not require proof of specific intent.
These distinct statutes are not ambiguous, and the lower courts accordingly erred by applying tie-breaking canons of statutory interpretation, including the presumption that the more recent and more specific of two seemingly conflicting statutes read in pari materiais controlling, as well as the rule of lenity. The codification of additional regulations and sanctions in MCL 168.544c, absent language suggesting the two statutes may not apply concurrently, demonstrated a legislative intent to complement rather than supplant MCL 168.937. MCL 168.937 explicitly contemplates that the Legislature might specify different or additional punishment by providing for felony punishment “unless herein otherwise provided.”
The inclusion of the phrase “unless herein otherwise provided in MCL 168.937 did not require the conclusion that MCL 168.544c was an exception to felony punishment for election law forgery. MCL 168.544c provides that the crime of signing another’s name to a nominating petition will be punished as a misdemeanor absent proof of specific intent to defraud; it does not provide that it applies to the exclusion of other provisions of the Michigan Election Law.
2. Defendant’s prosecution under MCL 168.937 did not violate fundamental elements of fairness because the plain text of that statute informed him he could be subject to felony charges if he committed election law forgery.Both MCL 168.937 and MCL 168.544c are fully enforceable on their own terms. Each unambiguously specifies the conduct prohibited and the punishment that flows from that conduct. Although the warning language on the nominating petitions conveyed to defendant that he would be guilty of a misdemeanor if he knowingly made a false statement in the circulator’s certificate, a second warning stated that someone who signs a name other than his or her own is violating the provisions of the Michigan election law, and that warning did not prescribe the penalty as a misdemeanor.
Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
