*1 People v Stanton 1976]
PEOPLE STANTON Opinion op the Court Object op 1. Constitutional Law —Statutes—One —Title Statutes —Body of Statutes. Michigan prohibits embracing The Constitution a statute from object requires purpose more than one and of the law expressed body in the law’s title and that the statute (Const 24). not be inconsistent with the title 2. Constitutional Law —Criminal Law —Prisons—Statutes—Pur- poses op of Statutes —Title Statutes —Amendments—Inci- Purpose dental to General —Inmates—Contraband. purpose changed by amendatory of a statute cannot be an changed act unless the is an title also ato foreign invalid; statute which includes matter to the title is however, precedent recent case indicates that where an act general topic purpose centers around a which the title comprehensively provisions declares and in the of the directly germane, act auxiliary, mentioned in the title are general purpose, or incidental to that the constitutional re- quirement met; therefore, statute, purpose is where a which, expressed prohibit as in its was to inmates, weapons prison of possession was amended to also inmates, weapons by "ger- the amendment was mane, auxiliary, general purpose to” or incidental of the act as set forth in the title the trial court erred in quashing against defendant, charged an information under amendment, on the of the basis unconstitu- amendment’s (MCLA tionality 'encompassed because it was not title 28.1623). 800.283;MSA R. M. 3. Constitutional Law —Criminal Law —Prisons—Statutes—Pur- poses op of Statutes —Title Statutes —Amendments—Con- traband. preventing A statute which was enacted for the References Points in Headnotes 2d, seq. Am Jur Constitutional [1] [2, §Law et 2d, seq. 16 Am Jur Constitutional Law 189 et App 69 of the weapons liquor, supplying narcotics possessing punish inmate for an be amended to inmates cannot amended, is as weapon also the title to the statute unless Constitution, expanded required to reded the *2 therefore, statute; trial court was correct focus a the of charging the quashing a defendant under an information the basis the statute is the amendment to statute (Const 4, 24, 800.283; 1963, MCLA unconstitutional 28.1623). Noble, Sub- Jackson, E. J. Russell Appeal from (Docket 1976, No. 2, Lansing. at mitted March 25551.) appeal to 15, 1976. Leave June Decided applied for. Stanton, inmate, was prison
Richard W. a charged possession weapon. with unauthorized of a to the information was quash Defendant’s motion granted. Reversed and re- people appeal. manded. General,
Frank A. Kelley, Attorney J. Robert General, Barton, Derengoski, Bruce A. Solicitor Justin, M. Prosecuting Attorney, and James As- Prosecuting the Attorney, people. sistant Adams, Williams, & for defendant. Goler J., J. H. and Walsh, Before: D. F. P. Gillis R. M. JJ. inmate, Defendant, H. J. was Gillis, weapon.
charged possession unauthorized with April MSA 28.1623. On MCLA granted trial defendant’s motion judge information. held doing, judge In so quash that a to the above-cited statute 1972 amendment subject was unconstitutional because contained in the amendment was evidenced title the act and because People v Stanton op the Court was vague The people appeal overbroad. as of right. We reverse. the Michigan enacted Pub-
lic Act designed keep which was weapons, liquor and of the narcotics out hands of any con- vict in order to a convict from forestall escaping punishment and to keep weapons out of the hands of may convicts which be used by the con- victs injure person. another convict or The act was entitled as follows: "An prohibit bringing prisons act to into of all
weapons,
implements
or
assisting
punishment,
selling
furnishing
convicts;
of same to
prisons
spirituous
of all
liquors, drugs, medicines,
or fermented
poisons, opium, morphine
kind or
character
giving,
selling
narcotics
spiritu-
*3
liquors, drugs, medicines,
ous or
poisons,
fermented
opium, morphine
any
or
other kind or character of
to
paroled prisoners
narcotics
or
providing
convicts
a penalty for the violation hereof.”
As written in prohibited of PA 17 following conduct: weapon "No or implement other which may be used injure any person, convict or assisting any or in escape sold, convict imprisonment, from shall be
given away or to any furnished any prison, convict in or any building appurtenant thereto, on or the land granted to or owned or leased the State for the use prisoners; and benefit of the any weapon nor shall or implement may which be used to person, assisting any convict or escape convict imprisonment, brought from any prison any App the Court granted thereto, the land or onto building appurtenant for the use State by the leased to benefit of the owned or weapon any injure or other nor shall prisoners; any used implement, may be which escape im- assisting any convict person, or in prisonment, be furnished, either sold, away, or given any- in or either any convict directly indirectly, to disposed of in such or be prison, where outside of the may be secured manner, it place that in such prison.” any convict in the §to 3: one sentence added authorization, shall not have on "A without under his control or possession any in his his weapon implement or other injure any convict to person, or to assist convict or other imprisonment.” the act’s title. not amend The 1972 amendment did questions appeal the 1972 are whether 17, 3, declared § must be to 1909 PA vague is the amendment unconstitutional because embraces the act now and because and overbroad an object expressed its title in violation of in 4, § 24. Const panel is unanimous first note that
We vague determining was not the amendment this further do not discuss and overbroad. We in view of the panel of this Court fact that another People Herron, this issue discussed App 242 NW2d Michigan Constitution contains the The 1963 following restriction: *4 object, more than one "No law shall embrace 1963, 4, 24. expressed in its title.” art
shall be
Const
appeared
every
provision has
This
People v Stanton
1976]
1850. Advisory Opinion
Constitution
enacted since
294,
re Constitutionality of 1972 PA
441,
389 Mich
463;
(1973).
In mandating that the title of an act express the purpose of legislation, the Constitution seeks' First, potential dangers. minimize two that legislators approve statutes that are not un- fully and, second, derstood the public that be unaware of the laws of this state: 1908, 5, "The purpose main art Const 21§ [now 1963, 4, Const prevent legislature art towas § 24] passing fully laws not understood and to avoid subjects into one bill diverse in their nature and having necessary no It connection. was intended legislature, law, passing should fairly notified design of its legislature public and that might understand only provisions from the title that
germane
expressed object
to the
would be enacted.
MacLean v State Board of Control for Vocational Edu-
cation, 294
(1940),
Mich 45
NW
and cases
[292
662]
cited
Carey,
therein.”
v
382 Mich
(1969).
NW2d 145
also,
See
State,
Vernor v
Secretary
(1914).
157;
Our courts have interpreted 24 to re- quire that a legislative enactment meet the follow- ing standard: "The of an act must be indicated its
and the
of the act must not be inconsistent with
the title. The title must
purpose,
indicate its
and the
purpose of the statute
changed
cannot be
by an amend-
atory
State,
act. Vernor v Secretary of
We now turn to one of the most pro- recent nouncements Michigan Supreme to determine if the require- amendment meets these People Milton, ments. 246-247; v 393 Mich (1974), NW2d 266 serves as an excellent guide- line for analysis problem confronting this panel:
"It
is now well established that
the title need not
serve as an index of all that the act contains:
"
abridgement
'An
of all those sections is not essen-
tial
to a sufficient
it
title. While
contains various re-
provisions
lated
directly
indicated or enumerated in
the
requirement,
under the construction of this constitutional
many
as
court,
times reviewed
this
if
general
act
object
centers to one main
which the
declares,
title comprehensively
though in
terms,
general
provisions
if
of the act
not directly mentioned in
germane,
the title are
auxil-
iary, or
general purpose,
incidental
to that
the constitu-
requirement
tional
265,
Rogers,
is met.’ Loomis v
(1917).”
271;
Reversed and remanded to the trial court proceedings consistent herewith. Walsh, J.,
F.D. P. concurred. Maher, R. M. J. (dissenting). I am unable agree with the majority’s reversal of the trial holding court’s the statute under which de- fendant charged was violates the constitution our state. enacted Pub- Stanton Dissent R. M.
lie designed keep Act was weapons, liquor system. narcotics out of state The act was entitled as follows: prisons "An Act all weapons, implements which used to assisting selling punishment, *6 convicts; prisons of same to spirituous liquors, drugs, medicines, of all or fermented poisons, opium, morphine any or or kind furnishing character of narcotics, selling giving, spiritu- or or medicines, drugs, liquors, poisons, ous or fermented opium, morphine or or any other kind character of prisoners narcotics to paroled providing convicts or (Em- penalty for hereof.” 1909 PA the violation 17. phasis supplied.) PA 17 contains five sections. It is § (MCLA 28.1623) this act which is at issue today. 1909,
As written prohibited in 3 of PA 17 following conduct: weapon implement "No or other may which be used injure any person, or assisting any convict or in sold,- to escape convict from imprisonment, shall be given away any or prison, furnished to in or any convict any building thereto, appurtenant or the land granted to by or or owned leased use State prisoners; and benefit of nor any weapon shall or implement may other which be injure any used to person, or or assisting escape convict any convict to imprisonment, from be brought any into any
building thereto, appurtenant granted onto the land or owned or leased the State for the use prisoners; weapon benefit shall any nor or other implement, may injure any which be used to person, assisting or in any escape im- convict to sold, prisonment, given furnished, be away, or either indirectly, directly any any- convict either App 69 [June . by R. M.
where prison, disposed outside of the or be of in such a manner, place may such a it be secured any prison.” convict in (Emphasis supplied.) 1972, the Legislature added one sentence to 3:§ authorization, "A convict without shall not have on his weapon possession or under control or in his his implement which person, convict or other or to assist imprisonment.” The 1972 amendment did not provide for any equivalent amending of the act’s title. For this reason, the statute as it now reads violates art 24 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution: "No law shall object, embrace more than one ” shall expressed in its title. Const 24.§ (Emphasis supplied.)
The majority correctly points out the twin pur- poses that this provision constitutional serves. The *7 majority also correctly states the standard which it traditionally imposed upon has legislative drafts- men: purpose "The of an act must by title, be indicated its
and the
of the act must not be inconsistent with
the title. The title must
indicate its purpose, and the
purpose of the
changed
statute cannot be
by an amend-
atory act.
Secretary
State,
Vernor v
of
The 1972 amendment PA was aimed at the recipient ultimate the contraband: of authorization, "A convict without shall have on possession his weapon his control or in his under implement other person, convict or assist imprisonment.” (Emphasis sup- convict to plied.) Thus, the amendment focused on a different class of people original than did enactment. It en- larged the of scope people subject prosecution act, under the and thereby enlarged the of purpose act. The to indicate that expanded the act had been prohibit not only introduction weapons prisons but possession also the weap- or control of inmates, ons would simple have been a task. Yet, the title of the act pur- does not reflect pose amendment. This is fatal. Conse- I quently, agree cannot the 1972 amendment is constitutional.
I
support
find
for my position here in earlier
decisions of the
Supreme Court. In Peo-
*8
Smith,
ple
(1929),
(1974), does not warrant this Court blithely title-body questions. Ap dismiss even substantial preciative presented of the difficult situation Milton, I reject am not inclined to defendant’s challenge to the statute under which he was found in Milton. charged language on the basis of Since the matter added subject by the 1972 amend ment is not adequately reflected the title of 17,1 1909 PA would affirm the trial court.