People v. Waterstone
296 Mich. App. 121
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- AG charged defendant judge with four counts of misconduct in office (nonfeasance) under MCL 750.505 in Aceval/Pena case.
- District court bound over all counts; circuit court quashed counts 12–14 but allowed count 15 to proceed.
- Issues center on interplay between misdemeanor MCL 750.478 and felony MCL 750.505 for nonfeasance.
- Court held MCL 750.478 expressly punishes willful neglect of a legal duty (nonfeasance) and the elements align with the charged conduct; MCL 750.505 cannot support the counts as charged.
- Court concluded counts 12–14 cannot proceed under MCL 750.505; count 15 may proceed, but on distinct analysis between statutes.
- Dissent argues for different treatment of nonfeasance vs mere neglect and would not remand; majority remands for dismissal without prejudice of all charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 750.478 preclude charging under MCL 750.505 for nonfeasance? | AG argues nonfeasance is punished by 750.478; 750.505 cannot apply. | Waterstone argues integrity of charges may depend on discretion; seeks to maintain counts under 750.505. | Yes; 750.478 precludes 750.505 prosecution for nonfeasance. |
| Are the elements of nonfeasance under 750.478 aligned with the elements of misconduct in office under common law? | AG contends willful neglect of duty equals corrupt behavior. | Waterstone contends nonfeasance lacks the corrupt-intent element required by common-law misconduct. | Elements align; willful neglect under 750.478 constitutes corrupt nonfeasance for purposes of 750.505. |
| Can count 15 proceed if it involves perjured testimony before a jury? | AG asserts valid felony charge for nonfeasance in presence of perjury. | Defendant argues distinction between nonfeasance and purposeful misbehavior; potential preclusion under 750.505. | Count 15 can proceed under separate analysis; but counts 12–14 are precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Coutu (On Remand), 235 Mich App 695 (1999) (corrupt behavior and intent elements in misconduct in office; statutory avoidance when a statute expressly punishes the offense)
- People v Perkins, 468 Mich 448 (2003) (corrupt intent required for misconduct in office; nonfeasance requires willful neglect)
- People v Thomas, 438 Mich 448 (1991) (when a charge sets forth all elements of a statutory offense, conviction under that statute may preclude common-law charges)
- Bommarito, 33 Mich App 385 (1971) (recognizes willful neglect of duty as nonfeasance under 750.478)
- People v Medlyn, 215 Mich App 338 (1996) (discusses willful neglect and meaning of willful in 750.478)