People v. English; People v. Smith
317 Mich. App. 607
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendants English and Smith were charged under MCL 333.7410(3) for possessing with intent to deliver controlled substances; police found drugs, scales, baggies, and guns in homes/vehicles within 1,000 feet of a high school.
- Both moved to dismiss, arguing the statute requires proof that the defendant intended to deliver the drugs to a person located on or within 1,000 feet of school property; trial courts granted dismissal.
- Prosecutor appealed by leave; this consolidated appeal addressed the proper construction of the school-zone enhancement in MCL 333.7410(3).
- The statutory phrase at issue is: "possessing with intent to deliver to another person on or within 1,000 feet of school property or a library ..." — placement of the modifying phrase "on or within 1,000 feet" determines whether the enhancement targets (a) possession within a zone, or (b) intent to deliver to a person within the zone.
- The lead opinion applied the last-antecedent rule and concluded the modifier attaches to "person," requiring proof that the defendant intended to deliver to a person on or within 1,000 feet of school property; dismissal was affirmed.
- A concurrence agreed with the result and supplemented the grammatical analysis with legislative history supporting that the enhancement targets deliveries intended to occur within a school zone; a dissent argued the enhancement applies whenever possession with intent to deliver occurs within 1,000 feet of a school (irrespective of intended delivery location), citing federal analogues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 333.7410(3) requires proof that the defendant intended to deliver to a person on or within 1,000 feet of school property, or only that the defendant possessed with intent to deliver while located within 1,000 feet of school property | Prosecution: statute ambiguous but should be read to enhance when possession with intent to deliver occurs within 1,000 feet (location of possession controls) | Defendants: prosecutor must prove intended deliveree was on or within 1,000 feet of school property (modifier attaches to "person") | The court applied the last-antecedent rule and held the modifier attaches to "person," so prosecutor must prove intent to deliver to a person on or within 1,000 feet of school property; convictions under §7410(3) reversed/charges dismissed |
| Whether court should address vagueness challenge to §7410(3) | Smith: alternatively argued statute is unconstitutionally vague | State: did not prevail on statutory reading; vagueness not reached | Court found statute unambiguous under the last-antecedent rule and did not address the vagueness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 475 Mich. 245 (statutory interpretation de novo; look first to plain language)
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230 (last-antecedent rule: modifiers attach to nearest antecedent)
- Stanton v. Battle Creek, 466 Mich. 611 (same; last-antecedent rule applies unless contrary intent appears)
- People v. Peltola, 489 Mich. 174 (read statutory words in context; give effect to statute as a whole)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 961 F.2d 1089 (3d Cir.) (federal school-zone statute interpreted to focus on location of drugs for enhancement)
- United States v. Harris, 313 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.) (federal authority construing school-zone enhancement issues)