People v. JacksonPeople v. Jackson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Burns
Defendant, convicted by a jury of larceny in a building (
Defendant would he guilty under either of the larceny statutes. The legislature has obviously decided that larceny in a building presents a social problem separate and apart from simple larceny and that all larcenies in a building, value being irrelevant, deserve felony status. See Black v. Gladden (1964), 237 Or 631 (393 P2d 190).
*656 The decision to charge the defendant with the felony instead of a misdemeanor is in the sound discretion of the prosecuting attorney. People v. Lombardo (1942), 301 Mich 451; People v. Birmingham (1968), 13 Mich App 402; People v. Eineder (1969), 16 Mich App 270.
Defendant’s arguments that the felony-larceny statute is vague and uncertain and that he was denied equal protection of _ the laws are without merit. It is clearly within the discretion of the legislature to distinguish simple larceny and larceny in a building as separate social evils.
Defendant’s further argument that the prison term constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is also meritless. The prison term given defendant is not so disproportionate to the crime as to shock the conscience of this Court.
Affirmed.
All concurred.