People v. Pace
311 Mich. App. 1
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On June 5, 2013, defendant Joshua Pace turned left and struck pedestrian Michael Bly in a crosswalk; Bly suffered permanent disability from head trauma.
- Pace was charged under MCL 257.601d(2): committing a moving violation that causes serious impairment of a body function (misdemeanor).
- District court granted Pace’s request for a jury instruction requiring the prosecution to prove negligence as an element; the prosecution sought leave to appeal that ruling.
- Washtenaw Circuit Court denied leave; this Court granted the prosecution leave to appeal the circuit court’s denial (interlocutory appeal).
- The Court of Appeals considered whether negligence is an element of MCL 257.601d(2); if not, what mens rea, if any, is required; and whether the statute is constitutional as a strict liability offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence is an element of MCL 257.601d(2) | MCL 257.601d incorporates a pre-existing negligence component; requiring negligence is consistent with legislative intent | Statute requires only commission of a moving violation causing serious impairment; no separate negligence element | The statute is strict liability; negligence is not a required element |
| If negligence is not required, what mens rea, if any, is required | At minimum, strict liability is constitutional; no mens rea required beyond the act | A mens rea (negligence) must be proved to avoid criminalizing innocent conduct | No mens rea beyond the prohibited act is required; prosecution must prove only the moving violation, serious impairment, and causation |
| If no mens rea is required, is the statute constitutional? | The statute is a constitutional public-welfare strict-liability offense: misdemeanor penalty is limited and unlikely to gravely besmirch reputation | Imposing criminal liability without fault could punish innocent or morally blameless conduct and offend due process | Statute is constitutional as applied: misdemeanor penalty is relatively small and public-welfare rationale supports strict liability |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tombs, 472 Mich. 446 (Michigan Supreme Court) (presumption in favor of mens rea; Legislature must clearly dispense with it)
- People v. Holtschlag, 471 Mich. 1 (Michigan Supreme Court) (distinction between unlawful-act and lawful-act involuntary manslaughter; unlawful act can dispense with mens rea)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (U.S. Supreme Court) (public-welfare offenses justify strict liability; legislative purpose to protect public safety)
- Stanley v. Turner, 6 F.3d 399 (6th Cir.) (traffic-related involuntary manslaughter defined by commission of misdemeanor is strict liability)
- People v. Janes, 302 Mich. App. 34 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (Legislature may constitutionally enact offenses without regard to fault)
- People v. Lardie, 452 Mich. 231 (Michigan Supreme Court) (contrast between general-intent and strict-liability crimes)
- People v. Townsend, 214 Mich. 267 (Michigan Supreme Court) (unlawful-act vs. lawful-act manslaughter mens rea discussion)