People v. Assy
316 Mich. App. 302
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In May and June 2013 Michigan State Police tobacco inspectors found noncigarette tobacco at King’s Hookah lacking invoices/labels; wholesale value without invoices exceeded $250. Defendant Assy was manager and involved in purchasing/handling; no license to manufacture tobacco products was found.
- Prosecutor charged Assy with (1) possessing/transporting/offering for sale noncigarette tobacco with aggregate wholesale value ≥ $250 without proper invoices, and (2) manufacturing tobacco products without a license. Two separate dockets reflected the May and June inspections.
- District court bound Assy over after a preliminary exam. In circuit court Assy moved to quash/dismiss, arguing statutory vagueness/overbreadth among other grounds.
- The circuit court dismissed the charges, concluding the Tobacco Products Tax Act was vague/overbroad because the statutory definition of “retailer” could include low-level employees (e.g., a 17‑year‑old cashier).
- The prosecutor appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the statute was unconstitutional and whether the trial court misinterpreted the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 205.426(1) (retailer recordkeeping) is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad | Statute gives adequate notice; applies to operators who must keep invoices | Definition of “retailer” is unclear; could criminalize low‑level employees or apply only to owners | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague/overbroad; trial court erred in dismissing charges |
| Whether statutory language permits criminal liability for non‑owners who operate a business | Legislature intended those who operate/direct business to be responsible | Assy: “operate” should be read to mean owner only; criminal liability should be limited | “Operate” reasonably means those who direct/manage day‑to‑day operations; non‑owner operators can be retailers under the Act |
| Whether the statutory scheme lacks standards and risks arbitrary enforcement | Statute presumes violation when proper documentation is absent and defines retailer; provides guidance | Statute’s terms are ambiguous and could be enforced discriminatorily against employees | Court: statutory definitions and context give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement |
| Whether rational‑basis review would invalidate the statute | State has legitimate interest regulating tobacco and recordkeeping; statute reasonably related | N/A at length below; defendant suggested overbreadth may fail rational basis | Even under rational‑basis the statute would be valid given public health and illicit sales concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- People v McKerchie, 311 Mich. App. 465 (Court of Appeals) (standard of review for motion to quash)
- IME v DBS, 306 Mich. App. 426 (Court of Appeals) (de novo review of statute constitutionality)
- Hayes v Parole Bd, 312 Mich. App. 774 (Court of Appeals) (statutory interpretation/context)
- People v Howell, 396 Mich. 16 (Michigan Supreme Court) (vagueness doctrine and notice/standards requirements)
- Bonner v Brighton, 495 Mich. 209 (Michigan Supreme Court) (presumption of validity of legislative acts)
- People v Hayes, 421 Mich. 271 (Michigan Supreme Court) (avoiding arbitrary enforcement)