PEOPLE v YAMAT
Docket No. 128724
Supreme Court of Michigan
Decided May 31, 2006
475 MICH 49
Macario G. Yamat, Jr., was charged in the 61st District Court with felonious driving,
In an opinion per curiam signed by Chief Justice TAYLOR and Justices CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, the Supreme Court held:
The statute requires only “actual physical control,” not exclusive control, of the vehicle. The prosecution showed probable cause to believе that the defendant was in actual physical control at the time of the accident. The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the matter must be remanded for trial.
1. The Michigan Vehicle Code‘s definition of “operate” requires the exercise of “actual physical control” over a vehicle.
Justice WEAVER, concurring, agreed with the result and reasoning of the majority opinion, except that she disagreed with the majority‘s criticisms of the Court of Appeals decision in Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co v Riddering, 172 Mich App 696 (1988). Contrary to the majority‘s contention, the Riddering panel did conclude that the contract terms at issue were susceptible to different interpretations; thus, the panel properly construed the contract against the drafter under the principle of contra proferentem.
Reversed and remanded for trial.
Justice CAVANAGH, dissenting, would grant leave to appeal and decide this case after full briefing and oral argument by the parties rather than peremptorily reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Justice KELLY, dissenting, would affirm. The Court of Appeals determined that defendant did not operate the vehicle when he grabbed the steering wheel. Instead, he interfered with the driver‘s control of the automobile. The majority uses the term “control” interchangeably with “influence,” and thus fails to apply the language chosen by the Legislature. The majority‘s interpretation of the statute creates an ambiguity concerning what level of influence over a vehicle is sufficient to meet the definition of “operate” where none existed before. The majority holds the defendant criminally responsible for conduct that he could not reasonably have understood to be proscribed, thus violating the constitutional right of fair notice. Contrary to the majority‘s contention, exclusive control is not required for a person to operate a vehicle. For instance, two or more persons may cooperate with each other to operate a vehicle. There was no such cooperation here, however, and the defendant‘s action came as a surprise to the driver. Therefore, his actions constituted interference with control of the vеhicle rather than operation of the vehicle.
CRIMINAL LAW — FELONIOUS DRIVING — OPERATING A VEHICLE.
Operating a vehicle, for purposes of the statute governing felonious driving, requires only actual physical control of the vehicle, not exclusive control of the vehicle (
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, William A. Forsyth, Prosecuting At-
Jolene J. Weiner-Vatter for the defendant.
PER CURIAM. This case concerns the appropriate interpretation of the definition of “operate” in the Michigan Vehicle Code.1 The Court of Appeals panel below interpreted the statute to essentially require exclusive control of a motor vehicle, and upheld the circuit court‘s affirmance of the district court‘s decision to quash the felonious driving сharge against defendant. We hold that the plain language of the statute requires only “actual physical control,” not exclusive control of a vehicle. Because the prosecutor has shown probable cause that defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle at the time of the incident, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for trial.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
For purposes of the preliminary examination, the parties stipulated to the following facts: Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle his girlfriend was driving. As she drove, the couple argued. During the argument, defendant grabbed the steering wheel and turned it. When the defendant wrenched the steering wheel, the vehicle veered off the road, struck a jogger and caused the jogger severe injuries.
The prosecutor charged defendant with one count of felonious driving.2 However, the district court refused to bind defendant over for trial after the preliminary examination because it concluded that the prosecution
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo.6 In order to bind a defendant over for trial, the prosecutor must establish probable cause, which requires a quantum of evidence “‘sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief‘” of the accused‘s guilt on each element of the crime charged.7 A district court‘s decision declining to bind a defendant over is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.8
ANALYSIS
The felonious driving provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code provides:
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, carelessly and heedlessly in willful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property resulting in a serious impairment of a body function of a person, but does not cause death, is guilty of felonious driving punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.9
The issue in this case is whether defendant was “operating” the vehicle within the meaning of the statute. To ascertain the meaning of a statutory term, this Court construes the term reasonably, according to its plain and ordinary meaning.10 The Michigan Vehicle Code specifically defines “operate” as “being in actual physical control of a vehicle regardless of whether or not the pеrson is licensed under this act as an operator or chauffeur.”11 Similarly, the code defines “operator” as “every person, other than a chauffeur, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.”12 The Court of Appeals accurately quoted the relevant statutory definitions and utilized a dictionary definition in order to ascertain the common meaning of “control.” The panel held that “control” “means ‘power or authority to guide or manage.‘”13 We agree that this is an appropriate definition of the statutory term “control.” However, the panel did not correctly apply the common
Compounding its erroneous application of the common understanding of the statutory terms at issue, the Court of Appeals panel looked beyond the appropriate defined meaning of “operate” to examine how that term had been interpreted in a case involving an insurance contract. The Court of Appeals panel cited Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co v Riddering16 to buttress its conclusion that “actual physical control” of a vehicle requires control over “all functions necessary to make the vehicle operate.”17 In Riddering, a woman grabbed the steering wheel of the car in which she was riding, causing the car to collide with a tree. The other passengers in the car sustained severe injuries and filed an action against her. The woman‘s homeowner‘s insurance provider refused to defend the lawsuit because the policy specifically excluded coverage for liability arising
The Court of Appeals panel below found Riddering “analogous” and held that a “passenger who grabbed and turned the steering wheel without permission was interfering with the operation of the vehicle, not operating it.”19 The Court of Appeals panel erred in relying on Riddering because Riddering is entirely inapposite for a number of reasons.20 First, basic principles of statutory construction require that courts construe statutory terms according to their plain or common meanings.21 As noted, the Michigan Vehicle Code defines “operate” as “actual physical control.” Because the insurance policy did not use that definition, the Riddering panel never discussed the plain or common meaning of “actual physical control.” As such, the Riddering panel‘s interpretation of the undefined word “operate” in the insurance contract is not pertinent to an interpretation of the statutorily defined term “operate.”
Where, as here, the statutory terms are not ambiguous and are susceptible to a plain reading, in construing the statutory term “operate,” there is no principled basis for resorting to an inapposite insurance case as an aid to construction as suggested by the panel below and the dissent. The definition of “operate” contained in the Michigan Vehicle Code requires the exercise of “actual physical control” over a motor vehicle.25 Unlike the Court of Appeals, we cannot conclude that the statute effectively requires exclusive control “of all the functions necessary to make the vehicle operate,” because
As applied to the facts of this case, defendant‘s act of grabbing the steering wheel and thereby causing the car to veer off the road clearly constitutes “actual physical control of a motor vehicle.”27 Utilizing the proper statu-
TAYLOR, C.J., and CORRIGAN, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred.
WEAVER, J. (concurring). I concur in the result and reasoning of the majority opinion with one exception. I disagree with one of the majority‘s criticisms in dicta of a Court of Appeals decision, Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co v Riddering.1
the road and strike a jogger on the side of the road, he was merely “hindering” his girlfriend‘s control over the vehicle because “he could not have activated the headlights or turn signals.” Post at 63. Contrary to the dissent‘s arguments, the person who controls the steering wheel does “‘exercise restraint or direction over; dominate, regulate, оr command‘” a vehicle. Post at 60 (citation omitted). Specifically, the person who controls the steering wheel, like defendant, can command the vehicle to go in any direction he or she chooses. Arguing and causing a distraction to the driver is “hindering;” seizing the steering wheel when a car is in motion and causing the vehicle to change direction is an exercise of actual physical control.
It simply strains credulity for the dissent to suggest that because the defendant did not have control of every ancillary device, such as the windshield wipers, defendant‘s act of physically wrenching the steering wheel of the car was not an act of actual physical control. The dissent‘s analysis is not advanced by suggesting that one who turns the steering wheel of a parked vehicle cannot exercise control. Post at 65. Here, defendant grabbed the wheel of a moving vehicle and, in so doing, caused it to change direction. Defendant‘s action was one of “control” in every sense of the word unless, as does the dissent, one requires that there be complete or exclusive control.
CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). This Court scheduled and heard oral arguments on the prosecutor‘s application. 474 Mich 859 (2005). After this process, I believe that the parties’ advocacy and the significancе of this issue weigh in favor of granting leave to appeal. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent from today‘s decision. Rather than peremptorily reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I would grant leave to appeal and decide this case after full briefing and oral argument.
KELLY, J. (dissenting). In this case, the majority claims that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the “plain meaning” of the words used in
I believe that the Court of Appeals read the words as intended by the Legislature. Therefore, I would affirm its decision, along with the district court‘s dismissal of the charge of felonious driving and the circuit court‘s affirmance of the district court‘s decision.
Felonious driving is codified at
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, carelessly and heedlessly in willful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property resulting in a serious impairment of a body function of a person, but does not cause death, is guilty of felonious driving punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. [Emphasis added.]
The focus of our discussion is the meaning of the word “operates.” Although the Legislature does not define “operates” in this statute, it does offer definitions еlsewhere in the Michigan Vehicle Code.
“Operate” or “operating” means being in actual physical control of a vehicle regardless of whether or not the person is licensed under this act as an operator or chauffeur.
The code also defines “operator.” “‘Operator’ means every person, other than a chauffeur, who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway.”
In both definitions, the central focus is on “control.” Therefore, our interpretation of
The majority‘s use of “control” in this case is interchangeable with “influence.” This is simply inconsistent with the definition of “control.” Therefore, the majority is holding the prosecution to a lesser standard than the Legislature intended and indicated by use of the term “control” in both
Here, in the simple act of grabbing the steering wheel, defendant did not dominate or command the
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTROL AND INTERFERENCE
The lower courts were careful to note the distinction between control of a vehicle and interference with that control. In the majority‘s decision, that distinction is ignored because the majority uses “control” interchangeably with “influence.” I believe that the distinction between exercising control and interfering with that control is relevant here. By ignoring it, the majority has failed to effectuate the Legislature‘s intent in choosing to use the term “control.” The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature‘s intent. Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Marlette Homes, Inc, 456 Mich 511, 515; 573 NW2d 611 (1998).
Random House Webster‘s College Dictionary (2001) defines “interfere” as “to come into opposition or collision so as to hamper, hinder, or obstruct someone or something[.]” This is a concept distinct from control. In
This case demonstrates the salient point. The driver of the car was in command of the vehicle. She was exercising direction over it by regulating the gas pedal, brake pedal, emergency brake, and steering wheel. This command caused the car to function. Defendant, on the other hand, hampered that command by grabbing the steering wheel. This action did not place the vehicle under his command. Rather, it hindered and obstructed the driver‘s command and ability to direct the vehicle.
By seizing the wheel, defendant could not cause the car to stop. He could not increase or decrease its speed. And he could not have activated the headlights or turn signals. All he could do was hamper the driver in steering the vehicle in the direction she chose. Because this ability fits the definition of “interference” rather than “control,” the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the lower courts’ decisions to dismiss the felonious-driving charge. Ignoring this distinction, the majority offers no justification for its failure to effectuate the intent of the Legislature.
THE DISCUSSION OF CIVIL CASES
Much of the majority‘s opinion centers on criticizing the Court of Appeals for relying on a civil case. The Court of Appeals supported its decision with a reference to a civil case dealing with the same factual scenario as in this case, but in the context of an insurance contract, Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Michigan v Riddering, 172 Mich App 696; 432 NW2d 404 (1988). Given that Riddering was factually close to this case and construed essentially the same term, operation, as does this case,
Riddering noted the distinction between interference and operation:
Operation includes more than simple control as Pioneer State seems to argue on appeal. While Ms. Riddering did exercise some control over the vehicle by grabbing the steering wheel, steering is only part of operating a vehicle. Operation necessarily includes the additional functions of controlling the gas and brake pedals and all оther components necessary to make a vehicle run. Operation includes control over all the parts that allow the vehicle to move, not just the steering function. Obviously, one cannot operate a vehicle only with the steering—there must be acceleration to get anywhere and there must be braking to stop the vehicle, along with control over other key components, such as the engine.
We can reach no other logical conclusion on the facts of this case than that Ms. Riddering interfered with the operation of the vehicle while it was being operated by Ms. Jaarsma. Ms. Jaarsma unequivocally testified at her deposition that Ms. Riddering‘s actions were a surprise and without consent or permission and the trial court so found. It logically follows that Ms. Riddering‘s actions, in ordеr to constitute operation or use, had to be with Ms. Jaarsma‘s consent or permission, because Ms. Jaarsma was operating the vehicle at the time while occupying the driver‘s seat. Without this needed consent, Ms. Riddering‘s actions did not constitute operation of the vehicle, but, rather, interference with its operation. [Id. at 703.]
The majority first contends that Riddering used some other definition of “operate” than the one appropriate for
Next, the majority claims that Riddering improperly stated that “[o]peration includes more than simple control....” Riddering, supra at 703. The paragraph that followed demonstratеd that the Court of Appeals was noting the difference between mere influence and the dominating or directing influence required to meet the definitions of “control” discussed before. Riddering noted that, while Ms. Riddering did have some influence over the vehicle, it did not rise to the level of the dominating influence necessary to reach the meaning of “operate.” This is because Ms. Riddering could not command the gas and brake pedals or any of the other components necessary to make the vehicle run. Therefore, she did not have sufficient control of the vehicle to be considered an operator. Id.
Although the majority passes over this point, the Riddering conclusion is eminently consistent with common sense. Everyone who has been in an automobile knows that you cannot operate it simply by moving the steering wheel. If you sit in a parked car and move the steering wheel clockwise and counterclockwise, you will not move the vehicle. This is because it takes more than influence or “simple control” over the steering wheel to make a car function. Simply put, no one would believe that interference with a steering wheel is sufficient to operate a car. Given that the Court of Appeals reading of the statute is consistent with common sense, it should not be casually overturned.
The majority also complains that reliance on Riddering is inappropriate because that decision narrowly
The rule of lenity should be used when construing a criminal statute. It requires that criminal statutes be construed strictly and in favor of the defendant. United States v Wiltberger, 18 US (5 Wheat) 76, 95; 5 L Ed 37 (1820). The rule demands sensitivity to the rights of individual defendants. Id. Lenity is required because, often, it provides the only means of giving fair warning to people about what behavior is criminal. Constitutionally, fair warning is given only if an ambiguity in a criminal statute is construed to apply to conduct that the statute clearly designates as criminal. United States v Lanier, 520 US 259, 266; 117 S Ct 1219; 137 L Ed 2d 432 (1997).
In this case, if there is any question about the level of control necessary to meet the meaning of the word “operate,” it must be resolved in favor of the accused. The majority‘s reading creates ambiguity in this statute because it is no longer clear what level of influence over a vehicle is sufficient to meet the definition of “operate.”
The rule of lenity is especially important here, given that Riddering held that a person‘s action in grabbing
Fair warning mandates that it is made clear to people what the law intends to do if they cross a certain line. Id. at 265. “‘The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.‘” Bouie v Columbia, 378 US 347, 351; 84 S Ct 1697; 12 L Ed 2d 894 (1964), quoting United States v Harriss, 347 US 612, 617; 74 S Ct 808; 98 L Ed 989 (1954). No one should be left to speculate about what constitutes a crime or about the meaning of a penal statute. Bouie, 387 US 351, quoting Lanzetta v New Jersey, 306 US 451, 453; 59 S Ct 618; 83 L Ed 888 (1939).
In this case, defendant and all others in the state could reasonably believe that interference with someone operating a motor vehicle would not be equated to operation of the vehicle. In changing the Riddering analysis, the majority holds defendant criminally responsible for conduct that he could not reasonably have understood to be proscribed. Bouie, 378 US 351. This violates the constitutional right of fair notice. Id.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL
The majority‘s most inexplicable criticism of the Court of Appeals decision is its claim that the Court‘s interpretation of the statute required the accused to have acquired ”exclusive control” of the vehicle. Ante at 51 (emphasis in original). The word “exclusive” is not used once by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
As discussed earlier, there is an undeniable distinction between control and interfering with control.
Another Court of Appeals opinion in a civil case offers a good example of this point. In Flager v Associated Truck Lines, Inc,5 two girls rode together on a motor scooter. One operated the throttle and steered. The other operated the brake. This ended up being a poor choice because the ride terminated in their collision with a truck. Flager v Associated Truck Lines, Inc, 52 Mich App 280, 281-282; 216 NW2d 922 (1974). To decide the case, the Court of Appeals needed to interpret the meaning of “operator.” It turned to the definition offered in the Michigan Vehicle Code,
The Court concluded that each girl constituted an “operator” because of their agreement to cooperate in handling the motor scooter:
In the extremely unique facts of this case, the evidence is undisputed that both girls agreed to and had some measure of physical control over the operation of the motor scooter. Patty, the girl who was to control the throttle and the steering, was unable to apply the brake due to the construction of the motor scooter. The scooter could be controlled only by the two girls acting together; without the actions of one of them, an essential control function
could not be performed. The statute defines an “operator” as “every person * * * who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle“; therefore, Vickie comes within the definition because she was one of the persons who was in control of the motor scooter. The trial court did not err either in his ruling or instruction to the jury that Vickie was an operatоr of the motor scooter as a matter of law. [Id. at 283, quoting
MCL 257.36 .]
Because of the girls’ cooperation, all of the essential functions of the vehicle were controlled. Flager differed from Riddering in that in Riddering there was no cooperation. Riddering, 172 Mich App 703. And it is the lack of that cooperation that marks the distinction between control and interference. Contrary to the majority‘s contention, the Court of Appeals did not require exclusive control. Instead, it required that, if two people are involved, they must work in cooperation with one another to operate a vehicle. Otherwise, the surprise actions of one constitute interference with the other‘s control of the vehicle. People v Yamat, 265 Mich App 555, 557; 697 NW2d 157 (2005); Riddering, 172 Mich App 703; Flager, 52 Mich App 282-283.
In this case, there was no agreement to work in cooperation in order to move the vehicle. Instead, as in Riddering, defendant‘s action of grabbing the wheel came as a surрrise to the person driving. Therefore, defendant interfered with the vehicle‘s control rather than controlled it, and the district court properly refused to bind him over for trial.
With no small amount of acerbity, the majority accuses my analysis of secretly requiring exclusive control. A simple reading of this section of my opinion disproves the accusation. I believe, as have the past courts of this state when called on to address this factual scenario, that control of a vehicle requires more than grabbing a steering wheel. But this does not mean
The majority finds it simpler to put words in my mouth and to attack those words than to address my true argument. A straw man is always easier to knock down. In truth, no exclusive-control requirement can be read into my opinion. What is in this opinion is the recognition of a distinction between interference and control. The majority pays no attention to this difference. In fact, it elevates interference to the same level as control. I find this inappropriate, logically and legally. Logically, turning a steering wheel is not enough to operate a vehicle.6 Legally, the Legislature decided to use the term “control” in
The majority misinterprets the Court of Appeals decision. In doing so, it accuses the Court of Appeals of failing to adhere to the “plain language” of the statute. Ante at 51. It makes the accusation despite the fact that the Court of Appeals consulted a dictionary and properly applied its definitions to the facts of the case. This is but another example of when “plain language” in the ears of the majority has quite a different sound in the ears of others, illustrating the fragility of the concept of plain language legal analysis in the real world.
Defendant did not operate a motor vehicle. Instead, he interfered with the control of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the district court properly refused tо bind him over on a charge of felonious driving.
I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Notes
The dissent would also require “exclusive cоntrol” because Justice KELLY finds persuasive the fact that the defendant had no “control” over even ancillary devices such as the turn signal and windshield wipers to demonstrate why his actions did not satisfy the Michigan Vehicle Code. Justice KELLY asserts that she does not advocate “exclusive control” because “[i]f two or more individuals agree to work the components of a vehicle together, then each is an operator.” Post at 70. While the dissent‘s “cooperative operation” theory does not meet a strict definition of “exclusive,” it still requires a concerted effort to control all of the vehicle‘s instruments. In fact, applying the dissent‘s construction, because neither the driver nor the defendant had complete control over all of the car‘s devices, nor agreed to work together, no one was operating this vehicle at the time it struck the jogger. Justice KELLY claims that the majority has incorrectly applied her analysis because defendant‘s girlfriend remained in “control” despite defendant‘s “interference.” It is difficult to square the dissent‘s claim that the girlfriend was in control, despite not having control over the steering wheel, with the dissent‘s argument that defendant did not have control because he could not control the vehicle‘s ancillary devices. Clearly, defendant exercised the “power to guide” the vehicle, which is the plain meaning of control that the Court of Appeals cited and we adopt. It is the dissent that refuses to give “control” its natural meaning by requiring exclusive or complete control.