People v. Butler
Citation | 430 Mich. 434,424 N.W.2d 264 |
Decision Date | 01 June 1988 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 81188 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne BUTLER, Defendant-Appellee. 430 Mich. 434, 424 N.W.2d 264, 74 A.L.R.4th 215 |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., and Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the people.
Thomas E. Quarterman Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
The spousal privilege provided in M.C.L. Sec. 600.2162; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2162 contains an exception for cases in which "the cause of action grows out of a personal wrong or injury done by one [spouse] to the other...." We hold today that an arson of a dwelling, under the circumstances of this case, is such a "personal wrong or injury" and that the victim may therefore testify in the prosecution of her spouse for that arson.
The prosecution has alleged that the defendant set fire to his wife's apartment on November 2, 1985. Accordingly, he was charged with burning a dwelling house. 1 M.C.L. Sec. 750.72; M.S.A. Sec. 28.267.
At the preliminary examination, the defendant was bound over as charged. The two witnesses at the preliminary examination were the defendant's wife, 2 who was the victim of the arson, and a lieutenant with the Arson Section of the Detroit Fire Department. The victim testified that the defendant had issued various threats against her, and she described the circumstances of the fire in a manner that established probable cause that the defendant had started the fire. The lieutenant's testimony helped establish that the fire had been started intentionally.
In the trial court, the defendant moved to quash the information. He relied upon the spousal privilege 3 and upon documentary proof (a marriage license and a marriage certificate) that the defendant and the victim had been married on April 25, 1985. After two hearings, the trial court granted the motion. 4 The trial court then entered an order dismissing the prosecution. 5
The prosecutor appealed in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. People v. Butler, 160 Mich.App. 721, 408 N.W.2d 532 (1987). Noting this Court's decisions in People v. Love, 425 Mich. 691, 391 N.W.2d 738 (1986), and People v. Quanstrom, 93 Mich. 254, 53 N.W. 165 (1892), the Court of Appeals, supra, 726, concluded that the victim "could testify against defendant only if the cause of action arises from a wrong which is purely personal in character, in no sense embracing a public wrong." (Emphasis in the original.) The Court of Appeals explained:
"Under the terms of the statute, therefore, as interpreted by both Love and Quanstrom, the exception does not apply in this case, and the privilege stands." (Emphasis in original.) Butler, 160 Mich.App. 727, 408 N.W.2d 532.
The prosecutor has now applied to this Court, seeking leave to appeal.
The issue before us today is simply stated. Is the arson of a person's dwelling a "personal wrong or injury" to that person? We think that an arson of a person's dwelling clearly is a "personal wrong or injury" to that person, and we reject a contrary interpretation as illogical and unreasonable.
Quanstrom was a bigamy case, and it is therefore unnecessary to overrule Quanstrom. 6 We see no reason, though, to interpret the "personal wrong or injury" exception in the narrow fashion stated by Quanstrom:
* * *
Quanstrom, 93 Mich. 257, 260, 53 N.W. 165.
Setting fire to a person's dwelling does more than "wound the feelings or annoy or humiliate." It places the person in great danger, and it threatens or destroys personal property. Though the record of the preliminary examination reveals that the defendant likely thought the victim and her children were away from the apartment at the time he set the fire, he could not have known that with certainty, nor could he have known that they would not return.
The Court of Appeals observes that the statutory violation of which the defendant was charged--burning a dwelling house--imposes liability even if the dwelling house is unoccupied, and even if the dwelling house is owned by the person who sets the fire. We need not today decide whether the spousal privilege would apply in such situations. Before us today is a case in which the defendant is said to have started a fire in the apartment where his spouse and her children lived. Other than a physical beating directly inflicted upon a victim, it is difficult to imagine anything that would more clearly be a "personal wrong or injury."
In People v. Sebring, 66 Mich. 705, 706-707, 33 N.W. 808 (1887), this Court stated:
We find the principles stated in Sebring to be more persuasive and more germane to the present situation than the statements that this Court made in the Quanstrom bigamy case. Accordingly, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. We remand this case to the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion. MCR 7.302(F)(1).
We would grant leave to appeal.
Peremptory reversal should be reserved for those cases in which the law is settled and no factual assessment is required. 1 The Court of Appeals did not, as set forth in the opinion of the Court, regard the law as settled. Because the law is not settled, peremptory disposition is not appropriate.
1 "Any person who wilfully or maliciously burns any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Warren
...recently, in People v. Butler,15 this Court effectively limited Quanstrom's narrow reading of the exception to cases of bigamy. Id. at 439, 424 N.W.2d 264. In that case, the defendant was charged with arson of a dwelling house 16 after setting his wife's apartment afire. She was allowed to ......
-
People v. Vann
...the common-law construction should be abandoned.4 This court criticized Quanstrom in another per curiam opinion, People v. Butler, 430 Mich. 434, 439-442, 424 N.W.2d 264 (1988), for holding that bigamy was not a "personal wrong or injury." But it did not question Quanstrom's view that the p......
-
State Of Minn. v. Allen Zais
...a “personal wrong or injury” rather than a “crime” has also been interpreted to include property crimes. See People v. Butler, 430 Mich. 434, 424 N.W.2d 264, 266 (1988) (holding that arson of person's dwelling is personal wrong or injury to that person). Similarly, in an unpublished opinion......
-
People v. Pohl
...However, arson has also been found to "clearly" be "a personal wrong or injury" covered by the exception. See People v. Butler, 430 Mich. 434, 439, 424 N.W.2d 264 (1988) (rejecting a contrary interpretation as illogical and unreasonable). In Butler, the Supreme Court specifically disapprove......