People v. Hall
| Decision Date | 29 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 150677. |
| Citation | 499 Mich. 446,884 N.W.2d 561 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HALL. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
499 Mich. 446
884 N.W.2d 561
PEOPLE
v.
HALL.
Docket No. 150677.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Argued Jan. 13, 2016.
Decided June 29, 2016.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Matthew Schneider, Chief Legal Counsel, Richard L. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.
Hann Persinger, PC, Holland (by Donald H. Hann ), for defendant.
Timothy M. Holloway, Taylor, for Edward Pinkney.
YOUNG, C.J.
Defendant is charged with violating the Michigan Election Law1 by forging nominating petitions in a 2012 judicial election. At issue is whether defendant may be bound over to circuit court on felony
charges for committing forgery under MCL 168.937, or whether the prosecution was limited to proceeding
with misdemeanor charges under MCL 168.544c(8)(a) for signing the petitions “with a name other than his ... own.” The lower courts believed that the statutes conflicted, creating an ambiguity, and therefore held that defendant could be charged only with the lesser misdemeanor offense.2 We conclude that there is no conflict between MCL 168.544c and MCL 168.937. Instead, the Legislature has provided differing punishments for two distinct offenses, and each applies independently to prohibit defendant's conduct. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the 58th District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant Brandon Hall was hired by a prospective judicial candidate to gather nominating signatures of qualified voters in the 2012 election for the 58th District Court. By the evening before the May 1, 2012 deadline to file the nominating petitions, defendant had not gathered the 1,000 signatures necessary to nominate the candidate. That night, defendant filled in blank nominating petitions with false names and addresses and then signed the petitions with those false names. He attempted to disguise his handwriting by using different colored pens and writing with his right and left hands. Defendant was aware that false elector names and signatures appeared on the petitions but nonetheless signed each as the circulator, certifying
that each petition had been properly circulated and actually signed by qualified voters. Defendant continued to sign false nominator signatures the next day while the candidate drove defendant to Lansing. The petitions were filed with the Bureau of Elections on May 1.
The state of Michigan charged defendant with 10 counts of forgery under MCL 168.937, bringing a separate felony count for each of the 10 forged nominating petitions. Defendant was arraigned on these charges. The prosecutor moved to bind the case over to the Ottawa Circuit Court for trial, and defendant objected. Defendant argued that the stipulated facts accepted by the district court supported only misdemeanor charges under MCL 168.544c. After a hearing on the motion, the district court denied the motion to bind defendant over for trial on the felony charges. The district court concluded that MCL 168.937 only imposed felony liability for prohibited conduct expressly identified as “forgery” elsewhere in the Michigan Election Law. The district court also reasoned that the rule of lenity should apply to mitigate punishment. The district court further held that there was sufficient probable cause to proceed to trial on 10 misdemeanor counts under MCL 168.544c(8),3 which states that “an individual shall not ... sign a petition with a name other than his or her own.”
The prosecution appealed, and the Ottawa Circuit Court affirmed the district
court decision. The circuit court concluded that MCL 168.544c was a more recent and specific statute governing defendant's conduct,
and therefore must control over the general forgery offense of MCL 168.937. The judge highlighted the language in the nominating petitions that specifically warned defendant that “a circulator knowingly making a false statement in the above certificate ... is guilty of a misdemeanor.”4 The court cited the rule of lenity and due process considerations as alternative bases for its decision.
The prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's refusal to bind over on the felony forgery charges.5 The Court of Appeals first held that MCL 168.937 created a substantive offense of forgery and was not merely a penalty provision.6 It then concluded that MCL 168.937 conflicted with MCL 168.544c. Based on the presumption that more recent and specific statutes control over more general statutes, as well as the rule of lenity, the panel held that defendant could only be bound over on misdemeanor offenses under MCL 168.544c. The Court of Appeals held in the alternative that charging defendant with felonies rather than misdemeanors violated defendant's due process rights. The prosecution appealed the Court of Appeals' decision, and this Court ordered oral argument on the application for leave to appeal.7
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court's decision to bind over a defendant is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion.8 To the
extent the lower court's ruling is based on questions of law, however, it is reviewed de novo.9 Questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation present questions of law reviewed de novo.10
III. ANALYSIS
A. MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW
The Michigan Election Law details the requirements for a valid nominating petition at MCL 168.544c. MCL 168.544c prescribes the form of the nominating petition, defines a valid nominating signature, and describes how the petition must be circulated. This section also establishes various punishments for individuals who violate its requirements. Subsection (8) sets forth the primary prohibitions:
An individual shall not do any of the following:
(a) Sign a petition with a name other than his or her own.
(b) Make a false statement in a certificate on a petition.
(c) If not a circulator, sign a petition as a circulator.
(d) Sign a name as circulator other than his or her own.
Defendant argues that, as an individual who signed a nominating petition with a name other than his own, he may be subject to punishment only under MCL 168.544c(9) :
An individual who violates [MCL 168.544c(8) ] is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment for not more than 93 days, or both.
The prosecution, however, charged defendant under MCL 168.937 :
Any person found guilty of forgery under the provisions of this act shall, unless herein otherwise provided, be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00, or by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not exceeding 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
MCL 168.937 is located in a chapter titled “Offenses and Penalties,” which defines a number of additional criminal offenses, both misdemeanors and felonies. The offenses in this chapter supplement the prohibitions defined elsewhere in the Michigan Election Law.11 There are also provisions that define the punishment for persons found guilty of misdemeanors12 and felonies13 under the Michigan Election Law.
Defendant agrees on appeal that the substance of his misconduct, intentionally signing false nominating signatures and intentionally making false circulator certifications, is prohibited under both MCL 168.544c and MCL 168.937. He argues, however, on statutory and constitutional grounds, that he is chargeable only with the lesser misdemeanor offense specified in MCL 168.544c.
B. STATUTORY CONFLICT
Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding under which statute they will prosecute a defendant, even if more than one statute is applicable.14 Statutory interpretation begins with the text of the statutes, and
“effect must be given to every clause and sentence.”15 The Court “must avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.”16 “When the Legislature has unambiguously conveyed its intent in a statute, ... judicial construction is not permitted.”17 If a statute is unambiguous, a court should not apply “preferential or ‘dice-loading’ ” rules of statutory interpretation.18 A statute is ambiguous if two provisions irreconcilably conflict or if the text is equally susceptible to more than one meaning.19 If two provisions can instead be construed to avoid conflict, that construction should control.20
The Court of Appeals held that MCL 168.937 defines a general election...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Betts
...The Legislature did not do so, and litigation recommenced.11 This Court reviews constitutional issues de novo. People v. Hall , 499 Mich. 446, 452, 884 N.W.2d 561 (2016).12 Defendant has not argued any basis in this case for finding greater protection under the state Constitution than under......
-
People v. Arnold
...these options at the trial court's discretion. McCormack, C.J., and, Cavanagh, J., concurred with Clement, J.1 See People v. Hall , 499 Mich. 446, 461, 884 N.W.2d 561 (2016) ("Due process requires ‘that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment......
-
People v. Magnant
...526. "To the extent the lower court's ruling is based on questions of law, however, it is reviewed de novo." People v. Hall , 499 Mich. 446, 451-452, 884 N.W.2d 561 (2016). "Questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation present questions of law reviewed de novo." Id. at 452, 884 ......
-
People v. Hughes
...505 Mich. 855, 934 N.W.2d 273 (2019).3 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Questions of constitutional law are reviewed de novo. People v. Hall , 499 Mich. 446, 452, 884 N.W.2d 561 (2016). Defendant did not object to the admission of the evidence from his cell phone under the Fourth Amendment, so this i......