People v. Antonelli

• Decision Date: 08 December 1975
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 16905--16907,18350--18352
• Citation: 66 Mich.App. 138,238 N.W.2d 551
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Thomas ANTONELLI, Defendant-Appellant. 66 Mich.App. 138, 238 N.W.2d 551
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 551

238 N.W.2d 551

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Thomas ANTONELLI, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 16905--16907, 18350--18352.

66 Mich.App. 138, 238 N.W.2d 551

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Dec. 8, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1976.

Released for Publication Feb. 26, 1976.

[66 MICHAPP 138] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Appellate Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Thomas J. McGuire, Asst. Pros. Atty., for defendant-appellant.

[66 MICHAPP 139] Metry, Metry, Sanom & Ashare, by Gilbert E. Metry, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and QUINN and KELLY, JJ.

ON REHEARING

T. M. BURNS, Presiding Judge.

This cause is before us once again by way of application for rehearing filed by the plaintiff-appellee. We hereby grant said application and reverse our previous disposition of this appeal. The original opinion is published at 64 Mich.App. 620, 238 N.W.2d 363 (1975).

One of the offenses with which defendant was charged was the burning of a dwelling house, M.C.L.A. § 750.72; M.S.A. § 28.267. The trial court concluded that defendant could not be convicted of that charge since the buildings in question were not occupied. The trial court concluded, however, that violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.73; M.S.A. § 28.268 (burning of other real property) was a lesser included offense of the one charged, and the court found defendant guilty of that offense. The only issue on this appeal is whether M.C.L.A. § 750.73; M.S.A. § 28.268 is a lesser included offense of the original charge of burning a dwelling house. In reversing the conviction, we held that the offenses in question are separate and distinct and where one is charged with burning a dwelling house, he cannot be convicted of burning a building which is not a dwelling. We reasoned that prior case law compelled the conclusion that the offense of burning a building[66 MICHAPP 140] not a dwelling required proof of the element that the building was not a dwelling, which element need not be proven to find a violation of the burning of a dwelling statute. Upon reconsideration of the authority upon which our decision was based, we find that authority to be inapposite to this case, and we affirm defendant's conviction.

Our previous opinion in this case has been correctly characterized as 'reverse reasoning'. As noted in our opinion, People v. Patskan, 387 Mich. 701, 713, 199 N.W.2d 458, 463, (1972), sets out the test of a lesser included offense:

"If the greater of two offenses includes all the legal and factual elements of the lesser, the greater includes the lesser; but if the lesser offense requires the inclusion of some necessary element not so included in the greater offense, the lesser is not necessarily included in the greater."

Applying this test to the arson statute, the offense of burning a building not a dwelling would be a lesser included offense of the crime of burning a building which Is a dwelling. The necessary elements to prove either offense are the same, except to prove the greater it must be shown that the building is a dwelling; to prove the lesser it is not necessary to prove that the building is not a dwelling. To hold otherwise would obviously circumvent the intent of the Legislature in their revision of the arson statutes and would defy reason. M.C.L.A. § 750.72; M.S.A. § 28.267 proscribes the burning of a dwelling and provides for a maximum sentence on...