370436
Mich. Ct. App.May 21, 2025Background
- Defendant Anthony Carollo, a safety and compliance officer for Lipari Foods, created a fraudulent trailer registration plate in Macomb County and affixed it to a company truck.
- Another individual drove the truck across Michigan, and it was eventually stopped in Mackinac County, where the false plate was discovered.
- Carollo was first charged in Mackinac County under MCL 257.257(1)(b) for acts committed entirely in Macomb County; the charges were dismissed due to improper venue on appeal.
- The prosecutor then re-charged Carollo in Mackinac County under MCL 257.257(1)(d), arguing the act of "using" the false plate extended into Mackinac County.
- The circuit court dismissed the renewed case, finding that the only criminal act—creating and affixing the plate—occurred in Macomb County, making venue in Mackinac improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in Mackinac County under MCL 257.257(1)(d) for acts involving a forged plate created in Macomb County | "Using" a forged plate is a continuing act that extended into Mackinac County because Carollo knew it would be used there | The criminal act of “holding or using” the forged plate occurred entirely in Macomb County; knowledge is not a separate act; venue is improper in Mackinac | Venue is improper in Mackinac; Carollo's criminal act ceased in Macomb County |
| Interpretation of "uses" in MCL 257.257(1)(d) | "Use" should include the continued presence and operation of the forged plate as long as it is affixed and in transit | "Use" means the act of creating and affixing the plate, which stopped in Macomb; continued operation by another is not Carollo's "use" | Court adopted defendant’s interpretation; "use" concluded in Macomb County |
| Whether knowing ongoing use in another county constitutes a criminal act under the statute | Carollo’s knowledge of the plate’s continued use statewide makes him criminally liable in any county where it was used | Knowledge is the mens rea, not an independent actus reus; only the person’s acts, not the acts of others, are material | Court agreed with defendant; knowledge is not a separate criminal act |
| Application of MCL 762.8 to allow multi-county prosecution | The offense involved acts in more than one county, allowing prosecution where any act occurred, including Mackinac | The felony consists of a single criminal act (use/hold), completed in Macomb, not multiple acts | Court found MCL 762.8 inapplicable; only one act occurred, and it was in Macomb County |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hawkins, 340 Mich App 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022) (review standards for statutory interpretation and bindover decisions)
- People v. Morrison, 328 Mich App 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019) (statutory interpretation—plain and unambiguous language governs)
- People v. Rutledge, 250 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (ambiguity in statutes and legislative intent)
- People v. Costner, 309 Mich App 220 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (judicial construction not permitted where language is unambiguous)
- Keweenaw Bay Outfitters & Trading Post v. Dep’t of Treasury, 252 Mich App 95 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (reasonable construction of ambiguous statutes to effect legislative intent)