PEOPLE v SCHNEIDER
Docket No. 53444
119 Mich App 480
Decided August 18, 1982
Submitted February 2, 1982, at Grand Rapids.
[1] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 145, 146.
[2, 3] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 149, 153.
[3] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 155 et seq.
[4] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 265, 306.
[5] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 178.
[6-8] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 104.
47 Am Jur 2d, Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children § 16 et seq.
1.
2. Where a case is transferred to the probate court pursuant to
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
R. B. BURNS, J., concurred in the result but would hold that since the Legislature has stated that the age of the juvenile is detеrmined at the time the offense was committed, and since the defendant was 16 years, 3 months of age when he committed the offense, the probate court had jurisdiction. He would also hold that when it was determined at the waiver hearing that the defendant had committed an act the nature of which was a felony and that the defendant wаs presently 19 years of age the probate judge should have waived jurisdiction to the adult courts. He would remand for proceedings consistent with his opinion.
1. STATUTES — JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to determine and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.
2. STATUTES — JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
A court must ascribe the most probable and reasonable intentiоn to the Legislature when alternative interpretations of a statute are possible.
3. STATUTES — JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
Statutes must be read as a whole so as to harmonize the meaning
4. STATUTES — JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
Statutes must be construed to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.
5. STATUTES — JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
A basic rule of statutory construction is that a statute specific in language and enacted contemporaneously or subsequent to a general statute covering the same subject matter constitutes an exception to the general statute if there appears to be a сonflict between them.
6. INFANTS — PROBATE COURTS — JUVENILE DIVISION — JURISDICTION — WAIVER.
A probate court shall have jurisdiction without regard to the defendant‘s age at the time of transfer where a case is transferred to the probate court pursuant to the statute regarding the transfer of a case to the juvenile division when it is determined that the defendant was under the age of 17 at the time of the commission of the offense; such jurisdiction shall be for the limited purpose of holding a waiver hearing pursuant to the statute regarding the waiver of jurisdiction where a child over 15 years of age is accused of a felony after which hearing the probate court shall either waive jurisdiction to the court having general criminаl jurisdiction over the charged offense or dismiss the case (
7. INFANTS — PROBATE COURTS — JURISDICTION.
The jurisdiction of a probate court is determined by the age of the accused juvenile at the time the charged offense was committed.
8. INFANTS — PROBATE COURTS — JURISDICTION — WAIVER.
A probate judge should waive jurisdiction to the adult court having general criminal jurisdiction over the charged offense when it is detеrmined at a waiver hearing, pursuant to the statute regarding the waiver of jurisdiction where a child over 15 years of age is accused of a felony, that the defendant has committed an act the nature of which is a felony and that the defendant is presently 18 years of age or older (
O‘Connor & Tushla (by Dennis M. Tushla), for defendant.
Before: ALLEN, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.
PER CURIAM. The people appeal, by leave granted, from an order of the Cass County Circuit Court affirming an order of the Cass County Probate Court, Juvenile Division, which dismissed a criminal petition filed against defendant.
On February 25, 1977, a home on Diamond Lake Island, Cassopolis, Michigan, was extensively damaged. A juvenile petition was filed against defendant on his 19th birthday, November 27, 1979, for allegedly breaking and entering the home on Diamond Lake Island. Defendant was approximately 16 years, 3 months old at the time the alleged crime occurred. On December 5, 1979, the probatе court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Although no authority was cited, the dismissal was apparently based on
“The juvenile division of the probate court shall not have jurisdiction over a child after he or she attains the age of 18 years, except as provided in section 2a.”
The following day the prosecutor requеsted a warrant in district court charging defendant with malicious destruction of property over $100. The district court refused to sign the warrant on the
“If during the pendency of a criminal charge against a person in any other court, it is ascertained that the person was under the age of 17 at the time of the commission of the offense, thе court shall transfer such case without delay, together with all the papers, documents, and testimony connected therewith, to the juvenile division of the probate court of the county in which such other court is situated or in which the person resides.”
The prosecutor then filed a complaint for superintending control in the cirсuit court. Following a hearing, the circuit court issued a writ of superintending control directing the district court to issue a warrant for defendant‘s arrest and then transfer the case to the probate court pursuant to
On April 25, 1980, defendant tendered a plea in confession in probate court. The probate judge refused to accept the plea and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The prosecutor filed a claim of appeal in the circuit court which affirmed the probate court‘s order of dismissal. We granted the prosecutor‘s application for leave to appeal.
The question is whether the court of adult criminal jurisdiction or the juvenile division of the probate court has jurisdiction over a person who allegedly commits a crime prior to his 17th birthday and who obtains the age of 18 prior to the commencement of criminal proceedings against him.
Since there is no Michigan authority pertaining to the interpretation of these conflicting statutes,2 our decision is guided by principles of statutory construction. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to determine and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Melia v Employment Security Comm, 346 Mich 544, 562; 78 NW2d 273 (1956). When alternative interpretations are possible, a court must ascribe to the Legislature the most probable and reasonable intention. Oakland Schools Bd of Ed v Superintendent of Public Instruction, 392 Mich 613, 619; 221 NW2d 345 (1974). Legislative enactments must be read as a whole so as to harmonize the meaning of their separate provisions and, if possible, avoid the construction
In the case at bar,
Applying the above-stated rules of statutory construction, we hold that where a case is transferred to the probate court pursuant to
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
R. B. BURNS, J. (concurring in result). The facts in this case are stipulated to and certified into a сoncise statement. On February 25, 1977, a home on Diamond Lake Island, Cassopolis, Michigan, was extensively damaged. Subsequently, a juvenile petition against defendant was issued on his 19th birthday, November 27, 1979, for allegedly breaking and entering the home on Diamond Lake Island.
Defendant was 16 years, 3 months old at the time the alleged crime took plaсe. On December 5, 1979, the probate judge dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Although the judge did not cite any authority for his action, I assume such action was taken under
“The juvenile division of the probate court shall not have jurisdiction over a child after he or she attains the age of 18 years * * *”
The next day the prosecutor filеd an adult criminal complaint and warrant charging defendant with malicious destruction of property over $100. The district judge refused to sign the complaint and warrant and ruled that he did not have juris-
“If during the pendency of a criminal charge against a person in any other court, it is ascertained that the person was under the age of 17 at the time of the commission of the offense, the court shall transfer such case without delay, together with all the papers, documents, and testimony connected therewith, to the juvenile division of the probate court of the county * * *.”
The prosecutor filed a writ of superintending control in circuit court. The circuit judge ruled that the district court should issue the complaint and warrant for the arrest of the defendant. He further ruled that once the district court judge became aware that the defendant was under the age of 17 when the crime was committed he was obligated to transfer the case to probate court. The case was thereafter transferred to probate court.
The defendant attempted to plead guilty in probate court but the probate judge refused to accept the plea and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
So—apparently, a crime was committed, but no court would accept jurisdiction.
None of the courts involved mentioned
“Where a child who has attained the age of 15 years is accused of any act the nature of which constitutes a felony, the judge of probate of the county wherein the offense is alleged to have been committed may waive jurisdiction pursuant to this section upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, whereupon it shall be lawful to try such child in the court having general criminal jurisdiction of such offense.”
In many ways this case is like People v Ross,
“Suppose a youth, one day under 15 years of age, lies in wait, deliberately shoots and kills a neighbor, robs and hides the body, conceals the weapon, and is not discoverеd as the murderer until he is one day past the age of 17 years, then, if my Brother is right, the offender is beyond the reach of the law, for his age at the date of the crime fixes exclusive jurisdiction in the juvenile court, and that court has no jurisdiction over one arrested after reaching the age of 17 years, and he cannot be charged with а felony in the circuit court, for, at the date of the murder, he was not 15 years of age. There is no limitation of time within which one committing a murder must be charged therewith, and a construction of this statute which would bar prosecution of a murderer, if a youth a few days under 15 years of age when he committed the crime, and avoids discovery until he is above the age of 17 years, cannot have my sanction. My Brother‘s opinion would render this law a statute of limitations under the supposed case I have stated. Clearly the legislature never intended that, under any circumstances, a prosecution for murder should be barred.”
In Ross, supra, the majority held that the defendant‘s age at the time оf the charge controlled the proceedings and cited the predecessor of our present waiver statute,
The Court also stated on page 442:
“This clearly relates to a charge of crime pending in a court of criminal jurisdiction. Where a child under the age of 17 years and above the age of 15 years is charged in a criminal proceeding with а felony, and his age is ascertained during the pendency of a criminal case against him, the officer making the arrest, or the
In the present case, the Legislature has stated that the age of the juvenile is determined at the time the offense wаs committed.
The defendant was 16 years, 3 months of age when he committed the breaking and entering. The probate court had jurisdiction. When it was determined at the waiver hearing that the defendant had committed an act the nature of which was a felony and that the defendant was 19 years of age the probate judge should have waived jurisdiction to the adult courts.
I would remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.