People of Michigan v. Ali Riad Shouman
330383
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Ali Riad Shouman charged under MCL 205.428(3) for possessing/transporting/offering-for-sale tobacco products other than cigarettes with aggregate wholesale price ≥ $250 without a license.
- Trial court adopted prosecutor’s jury instruction requiring proof that defendant knowingly possessed, acquired, offered for sale, or transported the tobacco products (but not that he knew a license was required or intended to violate the law).
- Defendant argued the statute is strict liability and that the jury should be instructed to require proof he knew a license was required and intended to violate the Tobacco Products Tax Act (TPTA).
- The prosecutor conceded a knowledge element as to possession/transport and the trial court included that element; the Court of Appeals granted interlocutory review of the instruction question.
- The Court analyzed statutory text, precedents on mens rea and strict liability (notably People v Nasir and People v Quinn), and statutory definitions/requirements that a transporter must have license and permit in possession while transporting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Shouman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 205.428(3) requires a mens rea beyond knowledge of possession/transport | Prosecutor accepted a knowledge-of-possession element only; no need to require knowledge of licensure or specific intent to violate TPTA | The statute is strict liability or, at minimum, requires proof he knew a license was required and specifically intended to violate the law | Court held knowledge of possessing/transporting the tobacco products is sufficient; no additional mens rea (knowledge of licensure or specific intent) required and defendant abandoned some arguments on appeal |
| Whether Nasir requires proof defendant knew he lacked authorization or license | N/A (prosecutor relied on limited mens rea) | Relied on Nasir to argue for a broader scienter requirement (knowledge of illegality) | Court distinguished Nasir (which required knowledge that a stamp was counterfeit) and concluded Nasir does not support requiring proof defendant knew he lacked a license or intended to violate TPTA |
| Whether MCL 205.426(6) presumption (lack of records) affects mens rea instruction | Presumption relates to violation of TPTA, not defendant’s state of mind; records described in statute do not include licenses | Argued lack of substantating records or license creates a presumption and undermines the instruction that omits knowledge of licensure | Court held the presumption is about possession being in violation, not mens rea, and license is not a record contemplated by that provision |
| Whether transporter-licensure requirements apply only to businesses (so driver lacked duty/knowledge) | Statutory definitions make individuals capable of being a “transporter”; statutes require transporter to have license and permit in his/her possession | Claimed license requirement attaches to businesses, so a driver/employee may not be in position to know licensure status | Court held statutory definitions treat persons (including individuals) as transporters and require license/permit in the transporter’s possession, undermining defendant’s argument |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Phillips, 469 Mich. 390 (statutory interpretation—plain meaning governs)
- People v. Quinn, 440 Mich. 178 (knowledge of presence is an element; discussion of true strict liability and regulatory offenses)
- People v. Nasir, 255 Mich. App. 38 (knowledge that a tax stamp is counterfeit is required; rejected requiring knowledge of lack of Treasury authorization)
- People v. Motor City Hosp. & Surgical Supply, Inc., 227 Mich. App. 209 (statutes criminalizing receipt of referral fees do not require corrupt intent; general intent suffices)
- People v. Pace, 311 Mich. App. 1 (standards on determining elements and strict liability offenses)