People v. Harwood, 90.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1938
• Docket Number: No. 90.,90.
• Citation: 286 Mich. 96,281 N.W. 551
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HARWOOD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

286 Mich. 96

281 N.W. 551

PEOPLE

v.HARWOOD.

No. 90.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 5, 1938.

In Circuit Court, Genesee County.

William Harwood, alias Bill Harwood, was convicted of placing a foul and offensive substance in a taxicab, rendering it unusable for two weeks, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Wm. E. Barrett, of Flint, for appellant.

Joseph R. Joseph, Pros. Atty., and Stephen J. Roth, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Flint, for the People.

WIEST, Chief Justice.

The Michigan Penal Code, Act No. 328, Public Acts 1931, § 209, provides: ‘Any person who shall place in, upon, under, against or near to any building, car, vessel or structure, any foul, offensive or injurious substance or compound with intent to wrongfully injure, molest or coerce another, or to injure the property or business of another, or to molest another in the use, management, conduct or control of his business or property, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five nor more than fifteen years.’

Defendant was convicted under this section of placing a foul and offensive substance in a taxicab, at its stand on a public street, rendering it unusable for two weeks, and was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than fifteen years, with a recommendation of one year. He prosecutes review under the claim that the penalty fixed by the statute is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. Const.Mich. art. 2, § 15; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 8.

The invoked provision of the Federal Constitution has no applicability. Smith v. Wayne Probate Judge, 231 Mich. 409, 204 N.W. 140, 40 A.L.R. 515. See Collins v. Johnston, 237 U.S. 502, 510, 35 S.Ct. 649, 653, 59 L.Ed. 1071, where the court stated: ‘The 8th Amendment is also invoked, with its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments; but, as has been often pointed out, this is a limitation upon the Federal government, not upon the states. Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, 8 L.Ed. 672;Pervear v. Commonwealth, of Massachusetts, 5 Wall. 475, 480, 18 L.Ed. 608;McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U.S. 155, 158, 12 S.Ct. 156, 35 L.Ed. 971;O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 332, 12 S.Ct. 693, 36 L.Ed. 450;Ensign v. Pennsylvania, 227 U.S. 592, 597, 33 S.Ct. 321, 57 L.Ed. 658.’

Length of imprisonment for felony is for legislative determination and not subject to judicial supervision. See People v. Morris, 80 Mich....