PEOPLE v HART
Docket No. 44873
Court of Appeals of Michigan
Submitted February 6, 1980. Decided June 17, 1980.
98 Mich. App. 273
Docket No. 44873. Submitted February 6, 1980, at Lansing.—Decided June 17, 1980.
Defendant, Susan L. Hart, was charged with larceny in a building in the Mecosta Circuit Court. The charge stemmed from an alleged shoplifting incident. The court, Harold Van Domelen, J., dismissed the felony charge and remanded defendant to the district court for trial on the charge of larceny under $100. The people appeal. Held:
The prosecutor is the chief law enforcement officer of the county and has the right to exercise broad discretion in determining under which of two applicable statutes a prosecution will be brought. The trial court erred in dismissing the larceny in a building charge because the offense constituted shoplifting.
Reversed.
V. J. BRENNAN, J., dissented. He would hold that it was not the intent of the Legislature to have the larceny in a building statute apply in shoplifting cases. He would affirm.
OPINION OF THE COURT
1. PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS — DISCRETION — LARCENY — SHOPLIFTING.
The prosecutor is the chief law enforcement officer of the county and has the right to exercise broad discretion in determining under which of two applicable statutes a prosecution will be brought; a trial court erred in dismissing a larceny in a building charge because the offense constituted shoplifting.
2. CRIMINAL LAW — LEGISLATURE — CRIMES — PUNISHMENTS.
It is the province of the Legislature to define crimes and prescribe punishments.
REFERENCES FOR POINTS IN HEADNOTES
[1, 3] 50 Am Jur 2d, Larceny §§ 49, 50.
63 Am Jur 2d, Prosecuting Attorneys §§ 25, 26.
Validity, construction, and effect of statutes establishing shoplifting as specific criminal offense. 90 ALR2d 811.
[2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 577.
[3] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 145.
3. LARCENY — STATUTES — LEGISLATIVE INTENT — SHOPLIFTING.
It was not the intent of the Legislature to have the larceny in a building statute apply in shoplifting cases (
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney (by Thomas C. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service), for the people.
Walz, Fershee, Jordan & Stanton, for defendant.
Before: CYNAR, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and M. F. CAVANAGH, JJ.
M. F. CAVANAGH, J. Defendant was charged with larceny in a building, contrary to
There is a precedential chain of case authority which establishes the validity of a prosecutor‘s discretion under these circumstances. See Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge, 386 Mich 672, 683; 194 NW2d 693 (1972), and the cases cited therein. One of the cited cases, in turn, refers to another established principle of law, namely:
“It will be conceded that the legislature has the constitutional power to fix the minimum as well as the maximum of the punishment. It has also the exclusive
jurisdiction to define ‘crime’ and prescribe the punishment. It is supposed to represent the sentiment and wishes of the people.” * * * “The legislature is ordinarily the judge of the expediency of creating new crimes and prescribing penalties, whether light or severe, for prohibited acts.” People v Mire, 173 Mich 357, 362; 138 NW 1066 (1912). (Citations deleted.)
Our Legislature determined that, amount of the value of the property notwithstanding, it shall be a felony to commit a larceny within a building.
In light of the recognition that it is the province of the Legislature to define crimes and prescribe punishments therefor, we note that the Final Draft of the Second Revised Criminal Code proposed for Michigan would retain felony status for the theft of property in a building, while empowering the court in its discretion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor after conviction in an effort to minimize hardships such as those commented upon in People v Carmichael, 86 Mich App 418; 272 NW2d 667 (1978), lv den 406 Mich 949 (1979). See Committee Commentary to §§ 3205 to 3210, Michigan Second Revised Criminal Code, Final Draft—June 1979.
The orders of the lower court dismissing defendant‘s charge and remanding the cause to district court are reversed.
V. J. BRENNAN, J., (dissenting). I would affirm the order of the circuit court dismissing the felony charges here as the facts do clearly show a simple larceny charge at most. See People v Carmichael, 86 Mich App 418; 272 NW2d 667 (1978), People v Feldman, 87 Mich App 157; 274 NW2d 1 (1978), People v Evans, 94 Mich App 4, 11-12; 287 NW2d 608 (1979) (dissent).