People v. Brown, 57.

• Decision Date: 02 September 1941
• Docket Number: No. 57.,57.
• Citation: 299 N.W. 784,299 Mich. 1
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BROWN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

299 Mich. 1

299 N.W. 784

PEOPLE

v.BROWN.

No. 57.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 2, 1941.

Andrew Brown was convicted of alleged illegal sale of whisky, and he appeals.

Information quashed, and the defendant discharged.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County; Charles H. Hayden, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

John Wendell Bird, of Lansing, for appellant.

Richard B. Foster, Pros. Atty., of Lansing, for appellee.

NORTH, Justice.

Andrew Brown was convicted of an alleged illegal sale of whisky, and he has appealed. As we view the record, defendant's primary ground of appeal is that no offense known to the law is charged in the complaint, warrant or information. This question was timely raised by defendant's motion in the circuit court to quash the information. This motion was denied. When arraigned defendant stood mute.

The information, which followed the complaint and warrant, charges that at a time and place specified the defendant: ‘* * * did feloniously sell certain alcoholic liquor, to-wit: six (6) glasses of whiskey to one Albert Boucher for the price of two dollars and ten ($2.10) cents, lawful money of the United States, while he, the said Andrew Brown had not then and there fully complied with the provisions of Act 8 of the Public Acts of Extra Session 1933, as amended, and while no other person at said premises had then and there fully complied with the provisions of Act 8 of the Public Acts of Extra Session 1933 as amended in violation of Section 32 of Act 8 of the Public Acts of Extra Session 1933, as amended and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of Michigan.’

Section 32 specifically referred to in the information, as amended by Act 281, P.A. 1937, reads: ‘Sec. 32. Compliance with act; necessity. No person, directly or indirectly, himself or by his clerk, agent or employe shall manufacture, manufacture for sale, sell, offer or keep for sale, barter, furnish, or import, import for sale, transport for hire, or transport, or possess any wine, spirits, alcohol and/or alcoholic liquor unless such person shall have fully complied with the provisions of this act.’

In asserting insufficiency of the information appellant in his brief states:

‘It is the contention of appellant that even though the allegation may follow the form of the statute it did not sufficiently apprise him of the crime which he is alleged to have committed. It did not give him sufficient notice for the preparation of his defense. * * *

‘The charge contained in the information in the instant case is based as above upon Act 8 of the Extra Session of 1933 (as amended by Act 281, P.A. 1937) * * *. The Act in question consists of seventy-three sections and includes a great many provisions as to the handling and sale of liquor, numerous classes of sellers and purchasers, both at wholesale and retail, and many possible types of violations which might arise from in illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. In addition there are many varied requirements for compliance with the Act on the part of individuals and persons who come within the purview of the statute. Failure to comply with the Act can consist of failure to give bond, failure to pay tax, failure to take out a license of which there are several varieties, and other particulars.’

The question here presented has been plainly passed upon by this Court many times. ‘Wherever it is essential to apprise the defendant of the precise offense charged, and an averment in the language of the statute is not sufficient to do so, the courts will require that the...