*1 213 1968]
PEOPLE CAREY.
Opinion op the Court. Oppioer. Inspector Oppicers —Peace 1. —Motor Carrier duty inspector is officer with motor carrier (CL 1948, 479.13). enforcing publie rules service commission Inspector —Dis- Warrant —Motor Carrier 2. Arrest —Without play op Log Book. inspector by without war- motor carrier Arrest defendant make, inspector to where power within the rant was by display required book as refused (CL insрector requested do so to statute when 750.479). §§480.2, op Serv- Carriers —-Hours Public Service Commissions —Motor 3. Oppioer Log Resisting — Book. an ice Drivers — was not authorized to publie commission service Contеntion that carriers, held, of motor of truck drivers fix hours service defendant, violating merit, not for prosecution without resisting service, an any regulations to hours of but as required refusing log book as officer 479.13, 480.2, 750.479). (CL stаtute §§ Oppicer Resisting Obstructing Carrier Truck —Motor Justice — 4. Driver —Evidence. an in the dis- of truck driver Conviction showing held, duty proper, evidence charge under of his inspector stopped had him obey motоr carrier he failed to away book and drove refused that he and (CL [2] [5] [8, [1] [3j [7] portation Police, 29 Am Jur 5 Am 37 Am 6] Am Am5 Jur Jur Am Jur, Motor and Jur 46.§ References 2d, Jur 2d, Arrest Constables 2d, Evidence 2d, Arrest 2d, Appeal Transportation Arrest pоr §§24-33. §§ §§ 5, <3. Points et 80 et 147, 154. Error seq. §§ seq., 761 et Headnotes 35; Am 47 seq. Jur, Am Motor Trans- Jur, Sheriffs, 21á Evidence—Statutory Exceptions Criminal Law- — —Misdemean- or. exceptions people prove statutory need The not are not charged applicable where defendant misdemeanor (CL 1948, 480.3) *2 Inspection—Loe
6. Carriers — Book. operator of a truck Eailure show his book to a motor inspector upon (CL 1948, carrier is a demand misdemeanоr 480.4). 7. Arrest —Without Warrant —Misdemeanor—Presence of Of- ficer. may peace any A person a arrest without warrant a presence (CL 1948, commits misdemeanor the officer’s
Separate Opinion. Quinn, P. J. 8. Criminal Law —Probation—Moot Case. Completion probation discharge all conditions of of from judgment probation renders on conviction crime moot. Appeal and Error —Moot Same — Case. judgment A moot when a case becomes on conviction is dis- charged own act and when there is no show- defendant’s ing legal disability arising collateral the conviction. from
Appeal
(Arthur E.),
from
Mоore
Oakland,
J. Sub-
Lansing.
Division 2 December mitted
at
(Docket
2,635.)
April
No.
Decided
25, 1968. Leave
appeal granted July 30,
1968. See
Eichard was convicted of an of- discharge duty. ap- ficer in the of his Defendant peals. Kelley, Attorney
Frank J. General, Robert A. Der- engoski, General, Solicitor Jerome Bronson, Prosecuting Attorney, and Dennis Donohue, Assist- Prosecuting Attorney, people. ant for the Mansfield, Jones, for Sulzbach & defendant. jury found defendant J. T. G. Kavanagh, violating § 750.479 guilty CL 28.747) resisting dis- in the an officer Rev — appeal duty. charge makes 6 Defendant’s of his his contention the all on error, bottomed assertions inspector employed motor carrier that a peace public Michigan not a service commission is authority production of to demand officer who has private such and, carrier under hook produce him. it, to arrest refusal to driver’s (1950), Mich Bissonette In Supreme that a conservation officer is held “Nothing in act officerbecause: or not a that it intended to invest title indicates its general powers im- officerswith the or conservation pose general on them the duties officers.” (p 354.) contrary, having to the the statute Quite powers motor carrier in- and duties of do spectors expressly provides: *3 inspectors appointed by “The the commission so powers upon peace shall have all the conferred of- general by the laws of ficers this state.” CL (Stat § 479.13 Ann Rev insрector conclude that a motor carrier We hav- ing given powers peace been of officer ais duty enforcing officerwith the of commission rules. Inspector Ritter, Defendant contends that even if complainant is a herein, officer, he was not au stop and thorized to arrest defendant without a war inspector stop rant. not However, did defend purpose making ant for thе of an but arrest, rather inspect log specifically book, which was to au by thorized statute. CL 480.2 ).1 § 9.1665[2] 1960Rev The arrest was made after statutory provision For the current PA see No (MOLA 480.15, amended as Cum Stat Ann 1968 Sujrp 9.1666[5]), the Cоurt. he book, which Ms to refused
defendant required law. do was must his conviction that contends next Defendant public commission service aside because set be truck of service hours to fix authorized nоt prop- This it. certificated not carriers drivers simply defendant because merit is without osition regulations violating any as to convicted not was resist- convicted rather was but service, hours of duty pеrform attempting ing imposed was an officer statute. and authorized that assertion defendant’s merit to There is no at the trial the use the result his conviction illegally evidence. seized defendant re- аfter testified Eitter Officer he showed defendant book, fused arrest him he was under told and his identification accompany nearest Eitter to the have to and would Thereupon put peace. justiсe defendant away. got gear into his Eitter drove truck sounding and with siren overtook cruiser, pull failed to but defendant over, him to waved Inspector obey. describe de- exact words Eitter’s complаint upon rests: which the action fendant’s I he, down, until he had not slowed waited “I waited sufficiently position to me he came to a close until got my I hit, estimation either move or I * * * stop. I think he was able to moved.” didn’t testimony jury could convict defend- On such ant of an under the statute. contention that his motion for a di Defendant’s erroneously rected verdict was denied because the *4 prove exceрtions people did not that the the to statu requiring him te2 book were not applicable Supreme is without merit. The was (Stat 9.1665[3]). Am I960 Bev § 1948, See OP §480.3 Cotjkt. op the question with a similar faced v. Baker (1952), 332 Mich it 323, where held: 320, people’s with the claim hold concur “We allege prove negative necessary it or was not the allegations.”
Having already determined that Bitter Officer dispose easily a we can оf defendant’s argument, i.e., final that Bitter not arrest de could a fendánt without warrant. Failure to log request upon
book a misdemeanor. CL 1948, (Stat §480.4 § ).3 9.1665[4] 1960 Bev person may any arrest without a warrant presence. whо commits misdemeanor in CL 764.15 Ann 1954 Eev 1948, T. J., concurred with Gr. J. Levin, Kavanagh, {concurring). 28, 1963, de- October P. J. Quinn, probation, years’ placed the con- 2on fendant was payment fine at of $100 included ditions of which per datе, de- the On same month. rate of $10 the probation or- the terms consented to fendant signature by affixing November 14, thereto. der for no new trial motion defendant filed hearing November same. for the datе noticed By people motion. answer this the filed prosecuting praecipe the 25, 1964, dated November attorney December for noticed motion By of December under date 7, similar action attorney motion prosecuting noticed '3, prae- hearing January Defendant, cipe January motion for noticed 4, 1965, dated 480.17, (MCLA 1963, No provision, PA see For eurrent 9.1666[7]). Supp Ann 1968 Cum Stat *5 11 Mici-i 218 Opinion by Quinn, P. J. 1965 and under date of Decem- February 25,
hearing again noticed the motion fox- 1965, 21, ber ’65 ’66 28, (apparexxtly intended). February hearing oxxthe motioxx was ad- the stipulation, hearing By Apx-il 7, March 1365 to 1965. Octo- 5, from journed on 28, 1965, petitioxx probation ber been all had probation which indicated conditioxxs proba- from discharged defexxdant was completed, tion.
n trial motioxx for new much-adjourned The and dexxied same 1966 21, heard June finally filed a claim ap- defexxdaxxt 15,1966, August day. 20, denying 1963 May entered from an order peal order entered a similar from quash, his motion from axxor- motion, 1963 on similar September defexxdant’s denying 1963 enterеd October der and sen- testimoxxy, judgment from to strike motion and from the order of tence of October fox- trial. motion xxew denying June facts obviates eom of the foregoixxg Recitation rep here shoddy practice Court on this meixt'by of oral How the case reached the stage resented. this at its December 1967 before argument but it did. comprehexxsion, Now, beyoxxdmy term is the briefs and oral argument, after reading beexxxnoot since October 28, 1965, I find the case has convictioxx discharged oxi been judgmexxt h.aving owxx (People [1879], acts. v. Leavitt by defexxdaxxt’s People [1881], 41 Mich Powell v. 47 Mich 470; 108; Ishpeming Mary [1882], 49 Mich City Maroney 226; Company Ideal Furnace v. International Hold North America 204 Mich [1918], 311; ers’ Union of People v. Ortwshi 220 Mich [1922], 462; People v. [1923], 620; Melovics Mich Thomas v. Mont calm Circuit Judge [1924], 44; 228 Mich People v. Pyrros [1948], Here therе no 329.) Quinn, P. J. arising from legal disability of collateral showing 378 Mich (1967), as in v. Mallory conviction above control. and the authorities cited
PEOPLE CAMEL.
Opinion op the Court. op 1. Law —Evidence Eormer Convictions —Admissi- .Criminal ' BILITY. Evidence of except former convictions or offenses is not admissible in cases in which such evidence material is or relevant to the being ease tried. 2. Same —Evidence—Eormer Conviction —Presеnce in Prison.
Testimony by a witness that he met prison the defendant prior inadmissible as evidence of a conviction. 3. Same —Evidence Eormer Conviction —Mistrial. prosecution larceny motion for mistrial for in a
-.Defendant’s building granted prosecution should have been where a witness just testified gotten the defendant told him that he had prison, out of and this answer was or have should been ex- pected by prosecution given it sep- because had been at a arate to determine voluntariness of a statement made (CL Purpose Same —Evidence—Particular —Instruction.
It is incumbent on the trial jury, court to instruсt whether , requested, or not so par- where evidence is admissible purpose they may only ticular consider it purpose. for that [2] [1, [4] '29' Am Jur 29 Am Jur -29 Am Jur References 2d, 2d,. Evidence Evidence 2d, por Evidence Points in Headnotes 320 et seq.