Lead Opinion
At issue is whether MCL 750.483a(l)(b), which provides that a “person shall not. . . [p]revent or attempt to prevent through the unlawful use of physical force another person from reporting a crime committed or attempted by another person,” requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed or attempted to commit the crime that was sought to be reported, in this case felonious assault, in order to secure a conviction. Because we conclude that neither the placement of subsection 1(b) in the statutory scheme of MCL 750.483a nor the grammatical construction of subsection 1(b) requires such proof, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals that held to the contrary and reinstate defendant’s conviction.
I. PACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 7, 2005, defendant arrived at the house of his child’s mother, Peggy Gordon. Defendant had been drinking, and he and Gordon began to argue. After Gordon asked defendant to leave, defendant went to the kitchen and returned with a knife. While approaching Gordon with the knife, defendant said, “I’ll hurt you.” Gordon replied, “No you won’t.” When Gordon reached for the telephone and told defendant that she was going to call the police, defendant grabbed the telephone and cut the telephone cords with the knife. Defendant then threw the knife on the stool where the telephone was located. Although defendant never pointed the knife directly at Gordon, she testified that defendant was within arm’s reach of her with the knife in his hand and
Defendant was charged with felonious assault and the offense of preventing or attempting to prevent the report of a crime. Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant not guilty of felonious assault. However, with regard to the charge of preventing or attempting to prevent the report of a crime, the court concluded that the prosecution did not need to prove felonious assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
On appeal, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. In analyzing MCL 750.483a(l)(b), the Court, focusing only on the phrase “a crime committed or attempted” in isolation and not recognizing the structure of the entire statute or the specific criminal act prohibited by subsection 1(b), essentially concluded that MCL 750.483a(l)(b) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed or attempted to commit the crime sought to be reported.
The prosecution applied for leave to appeal in this Court. After directing the parties to address whether MCL 750.483a(1)(b) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed or attempted to commit a crime, we heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action, as permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(1).
Whether MCL 750.483a(l)(b) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed or attempted to commit a crime is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de .novo.
III. ANALYSIS
The statutory scheme at issue in this case involves MCL 750.483a, which broadly criminalizes attempts to interfere with the reporting, investigating, or prosecution of crimes. MCL 750.483a(1)(a)
As is evident, all the offenses described attempt to prevent interference, of one sort or another, with the investigation of a crime or the administration of justice. By including MCL 750.483a(l)(b) and its criminalization of the interference with the report of a crime within this statutory scheme, the Legislature has made clear that its concern was to prevent interference with the report of a crime and not with whether the crime being reported was actually committed or attempted.
The criminal action that MCL 750.483a(l)(b) prohibits is found in the phrase “[p] revent or attempt to prevent.” As used in the statute, the verb “prevent” is transitive in nature,
This is significant because a report will necessarily entail the subjective perception of the person who is reporting. “Report” is relevantly defined as “a detailed account of an event, situation, etc., [usually] based on observation or inquiry.”
Finally, defendant argues that, because the statute specifically refers to a crime “committed or attempted,” it must require proof of the actual commission or attempted commission of a crime and that any other interpretation would render this phrase superfluous.
IV CONCLUSION
In sum, we conclude that the prosecution is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime sought to be reported was attempted or committed by another person in order to obtain a conviction under MCL 750.483a(l)(b) because the placement of § 483a(l)(b) in the statutory scheme and the grammatical context in which the phrase “crime committed or attempted” is used do not require such an interpretation and the plain language of the statute can be interpreted to reach a result that is consistent with the statutory scheme. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals that held otherwise and reinstate defendant’s conviction.
Reversed.
Notes
Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 25, 2007 (Docket No. 264584).
People v Nyx,
People v Gillis,
MCL 750.483a(1)(a) provides that a person shall not “[withhold or refuse to produce any testimony, information, document, or thing after the court has ordered it to be produced following a hearing.”
MCL 750.483a(1)(b) provides that a person shall not “[plrevent or attempt to prevent through the unlawful use of physical force another person from reporting a crime committed or attempted by another person.”
MCL 750.483a(1)(c) provides that a person shall not
[retaliate or attempt to retaliate against another person for having reported or attempted to report a crime committed or attempted by another person. As used in this subsection, “retaliate” means to do any of the following:
(i) Commit or attempt to commit a crime against any person.
*227 (¿i) Threaten to kill or injure any person or threaten to cause property damage.
MCL 750.483a(3) provides:
A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Give, offer to give, or promise anything of value to any person to influence a person’s statement to a police officer conducting a lawful investigation of a crime or the presentation of evidence to a police officer conducting a lawfid investigation of a crime.
(b) Threaten or intimidate any person to influence a person’s statement to a police officer conducting a lawful investigation of a crime or the presentation of evidence to a police officer conducting a lawful investigation of a crime.
MCL 750.483a(5) provides:
A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Knowingly and intentionally remove, alter, conceal, destroy, or otherwise tamper with evidence to be offered in a present or future official proceeding.
(b) Offer evidence at an official proceeding that he or she recklessly disregards as false.
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001).
Sabin, The Gregg Reference Manual, Ninth Edition (New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2001), pp 556,561; Weinhold, The Tongue Untied, A guide to grammar, punctuation, and style <http://grammar.uoregon.edu/verbs/ transitive.html> (accessed December 5, 2007).
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001).
Id. (emphasis added).
Although the dissent accuses the majority of reading words into the statute, the dissenting justice cannot challenge the unmistakable fact that the verb “prevent” is transitive in nature and that it focuses on the action of reporting. And she cannot meaningfully challenge the meaning of the term “report.” Nor has she explained why the language “committed or attempted” is included in MCL 750.483a(l)(b) when the word “crime,” by itself, implicates a completed act. See MCL 750.5 (“ ‘Crime’ means an act or omission forbidden by law ....”). Instead, the dissenting justice adds her own words to the construction of the statute by adding an additional verb: “crime .. . was committed or attempted.” It is only through this unwarranted addition that the dissenting justice is able to effectively create the additional element that she would like the prosecution to prove.
To support this argument, defendant relies on this Court’s interpretation in People v Burgess,
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of interfering with the report of a crime.
THE FACTS
The alleged facts are as follows. Defendant and the complainant, Peggy Gordon, had a child together. On March 7, 2005, defendant arrived at Gordon’s home. An argument ensued. At one point in the argument, defendant retrieved a knife from the kitchen and told Gordon that he was going to hurt her. Gordon told him, “No you won’t.” As Gordon moved to pick up the phone to call the police, defendant cut the telephone cord. He then stated, “That’s not me,” put down the knife, and left the home. Gordon substituted a different phone cord and called the police.
Defendant was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and interfering with the report of a crime. He opted for a bench trial before Judge Thomas E. Jackson of the Wayne Circuit Court. Judge Jackson found that the prosecution had not met its burden to prove assault with a dangerous weapon, and he acquitted defendant of this charge. On the charge of interfering with the report of a crime, the judge entered a provisional verdict of guilty. But he asked the parties to address whether the statute prohibiting interference with the report of a crime requires that a crime actually had been committed or attempted. Specifically, the judge stated:
[I]f, in fact, [Gordon] only has to perceive a crime being committed and that is in her mind ... if, it’s enough that she*233 perceived it, then that’s enough for that charge to stand. If, in fact, it has to be an actual crime for that particular one to stand, then I would find that that doesn’t stand.
After considering the parties’ arguments, Judge Jackson accepted the prosecution’s position that the statute requires only that the person reporting the crime perceive that a crime had been committed or attempted. Relying on this interpretation, he found defendant guilty of interfering with the report of a crime.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction in a split, unpublished opinion.
Following the Court of Appeals decision, the prosecution applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We heard argument on the application to consider whether MCL 750.483a(1)(b) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed or attempted to commit a crime.
ADEQUATE PROOF OF THE THIRD ELEMENT MAY BE LACKING
The most basic rule of criminal procedure is that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime unless the
MCL 750.483a(l)(b) provides:
(1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(b) Prevent or attempt to prevent through the unlawful use of physical force another person from reporting a crime committed or attempted by another person.
Under the statutory definition of this crime, the prosecution must prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction: (1) the defendant used unlawful physical force, (2) the unlawful physical force prevented or attempted to prevent another person from reporting a crime, and (3) the crime sought to be reported was committed or attempted by another person.
Here, the finder of fact, the trial judge, assumed that the statute requires only that the person seeking to report a crime perceived that a crime had been committed or attempted. Because this is an incorrect interpretation of the statute, defendant’s conviction cannot stand. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that reversed defendant’s conviction. The Court of Appeals was correct in remanding the case to the trial court. That court should consider whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant or another person committed or attempted to commit the crime sought to be reported.
THE MAJORITY’S ERROR
The glaring weakness in the majority’s interpretation is that, in order to justify its conclusion, it reads language into the statute. The majority essentially interprets the statute as providing that a person is guilty of interfering with the report of a crime if the person “prevents or attempts to prevent through the unlawful use of physical force another person from reporting a crime that the reporter perceives to have been committed or attempted by another person.”
Contrary to the majority’s interpretation, the statute does not prohibit preventing or attempting to prevent another from reporting a “perceived” crime, or a “pos
Holding that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime sought to be reported was committed or attempted by another person is consistent with this Court’s decision in People v Burgess.
At the time, the felony-firearm statute
The Burgess Court held that an element of felony-firearm was that a defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony.
The Burgess Court concluded that the felony-firearm statue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony. This logic supports holding that the statute under consideration here requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime sought to be reported was committed or attempted by another person.
CONCLUSION
The statute prohibiting interference with the report of a crime prohibits a person from unlawfully using physical force to prevent or attempt to prevent “another person from reporting a crime committed or
MCL 750.483a(1)(b).
Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 25, 2007 (Docket No. 264584).
See, e.g., In re Winship,
The majority claims that my construction adds a word to the third element of the statute. It is true that I use the word “was.” However, I use the word for the sake of clarity, not to alter the meaning of the statutory language. This is illustrated by the fact that I can omit the word and reach the same result. There is another way to phrase the elements of the crime that does not use the word “was”: (1) the defendant used unlawful physical force (2) to prevent or attempt to prevent another person from
The majority also claims that my interpretation does not give effect to the phrase “committed or attempted.” I disagree. This language is included to make clear that one violates the provision by interfering with the reporting of a committed crime or an attempted crime. My interpretation recognizes this fact.
The statute specifies “a crime committed or attempted by another person.” It does not require that defendant or another person be convicted of the underlying crime. Therefore, the prosecution need prove heyond a reasonable doubt only that the crime sought to be reported was committed or attempted by another person. It need not prove that defendant or another person was convicted of the underlying crime.
In making this determination, the trial court normally would consider whether the behavior of defendant that prompted the alleged victim to call the police constituted a crime. But the judge was the trier of fact here. And a judge, unlike a jury, is not allowed to reach inconsistent verdicts. Hence, the judge cannot find defendant guilty of interfering with the
Ante at 228.
It is possible that some may find the majority opinion compelling because of the facts alleged and the verdict of not guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon. As alleged, the facts could well have supported a guilty verdict for this charge. But that is not the issue before this Court. Rather, our task is limited to ascertaining the elements of interfering with the report of a crime and deciding whether the prosecution proved those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have demonstrated, a remand is required. It is not clear that the prosecution satisfied its burden, given the trial court’s verdict of not guilty of the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon.
People v Burgess,
MCL 750.227b.
Burgess,
Contrary to the implications of the majority opinion, I do not claim that Burgess is controlling. The language of the statute at issue is controlling. My interpretation is consistent with that language. The majority’s is not. While Burgess is not controlling, I believe that it is relevant to highlight a weakness in the majority’s position. My interpretation is consistent with decisions of this Court interpreting similar language, whereas the majority’s is not.
The majority argues that we should not assume that the Legislature was aware of the interpretation that the Burgess Court gave the felony-firearm statute when it enacted the instant statute. But I do not need to make such an assumption to find Burgess relevant. Even if the majority were correct that we should not assume this fact, this Court is obligated to be aware of its own judicial construction of the similarly worded felony-firearm statute. And the Court should take guidance from that interpretation in this case.