People v. Holbrook
| Citation | 128 N.W.2d 484,373 Mich. 94 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Charles F. HOLBROOK, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Wickett & Erickson, by Charles C. Wickett, Kalamazoo, for defendant and appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James R. Ramsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
In the early hours of November 13, 1961, two State troopers while on patrol near Cedarville (Mackinac county) observed a car approaching them. The troopers stopped their car, shut off the lights, and watched the car some 20 minutes. One trooper testified:
'Well, the car was stopped, and it would shut its lights off and show the flashlight and then turn them back on again, pull ahead and shine in the field again, until they spotted some deer in the field.'
The troopers finally heard a 'loud blast' and saw a person running from the car into the field. The car then started and continued on the road until it was stopped by the troopers. Defendant Holbrook was found to be the driver. He was ordered back to the point where his alleged partner was. The partner was apprehended with a 5-cell flashlight in his hand and a gun at his feet.
A conservation officer was consulted. He drew up complaints which were signed by one of the two troopers. A justice of the peace issued warrants.
At trial in circuit court, after appeal from justice court, Holbrook's counsel moved to quash on the ground that no endorsement or order in writing authorizing the warrant had been executed by the prosecutor. The motion was denied. The jury found Holbrook guilty.
The pertinent portion of C.L.1948, § 774.4, P.A.1958, No. 136 (Stat.Ann.1961 Cum.Supp. § 28.1195) reads as follows:
'It shall not be lawful hereafter for any justice of the peace to issue warrants in any criminal cases except where warrants are requested by members of the state police or any sheriff's department for traffic or motor vehicle violations until an order in writing allowing the same is filed with such justice and signed by the prosecuting attorney of the county or unless security for costs shall have been filed with the justice.'
Since the warrant was issued without the authority and written order of the prosecuting attorney, did the justice of peace have jurisdiction?
The above statute, to some extent, is a reenactment of Howell's Annotated Statutes, § 7135a:
'[I]t shall not be lawful hereafter for justices of the peace to issue warrants in any criminal cases, except in cases not cognizable by justices of the peace, or breach of the peace committed in the presence of the officer making the arrest, until an order in writing allowing the same is filed with such justice, and signed by the prosecuting attorney for the county, or unless security for cost shall have been filed with said justice:'
People v. Griswold, 64 Mich. 722, 31 N.W. 809 (1887), was decided under the above section. In Griswold the Court said:
Reconsideration of the holding in People v. Griswold, supra, is indicated at this time in view of the fact that the statute then in effect was repealed in 1927 and C.L.1948, § 774.4 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1195) was enacted 2 years after the repeal.
The policy behind the statute would appear to be to insure orderly procedure by, in the main, funnelling all law enforcement through the prosecuting attorney, the chief law enforcement officer of a county. Exception is allowed in connection with traffic violations, or a complainant is permitted to proceed on his own if security for costs is filed with the justice. The filing of costs assures payment to the justice, and is also a test of the complainant's belief in the guilt of the person accused.
There is a further exception to the above statute, contained in C.L.S.1956, § 300.12 (Stat.Ann.1958 Rev. § 13.1222) which reads:
Since the legislature has made certain exceptions within C.L.1948, § 774.4, P.A.1958, No. 136 (Stat.Ann.1961 Cum.Supp. § 28.1195), since it also provided a special procedure for handling game violations in C.L.S.1956, § 300.12 (Stat.Ann.1958 Rev. § 13.1222), and, finally, in view of the clear language of the statute itself which states that a justice of the peace cannot lawfully issue a warrant in criminal cases unless the statute is followed, defendant was unlawfully proceeded against.
'A justice's court is of inferior and limited jurisdiction and is confined strictly to the power conferred on it by law, to be exercised in the prescribed manner.'--In re Harrand, 254 Mich. 584, 590, 236 N.W. 869, 871.
The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction.
Should the illegal procedure be allowed to stand because the prosecuting attorney subsequently appeared and prosecuted the case? The initial unlawfulness may not be so validated. A prosecutor, under the circumstances of this or similar cases, might well feel under a compulsion to appear and prosecute even though he might not otherwise have done so in the exercise of his own independent judgment had he been consulted initially as the law requires. Griswold is overruled.
The verdict of the jury and the sentence imposed are reversed and vacated, and the defendant is discharged.
BLACK, Justice (for affirmance).
We have in this State a rule of statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Autio v. Proksch Const. Co., 9
...are quite beyond judicial repudiation when they involve statutes rather than the common law.' To the above consider People v. Holbrook, 373 Mich. at 101, 128 N.W.2d at 487, into which the following was penned by the 'There is, I fear, an all too easygoing tendency in our midst to overrule l......
-
People v. Byrd
...in writing from the prosecutor is 'jurisdictional' (see Mr. Justice Adams' majority opinion in the 5--3 decision of People v. Holbrook (1964), 373 Mich. 94, 128 N.W.2d 484, and his opinion in People v. Carter (1967), 379 Mich. 24, 148 N.W.2d 860, bearing the signature of 3 justices) or affe......
-
Siebert v. Northport Point Cottage Owners' Ass'n
...and Autio v. Proksch Const. Co., 377 Mich. 517, 141 N.W.2d 81; also that other 5--3 overrulement we are studying anew (People v. Holbrook, 373 Mich. 94, 128 N.W.2d 484). The case is ripe for the kind of overrulement for which Justices O'Hara and Kavanagh stood (without benefit of distinctiv......
-
Jones v. Keetch
...so to do, GCR 1963, 853 considered. This surely means 'no jurisdiction', as 'jurisdiction' is known here moderne by People v. Holbrook, 373 Mich. 94, 128 N.W.2d 484 (1964) and Holbrook's painful explainer, People v. Carter, 379 Mich. 24, 148 N.W.2d 860 (1967), both per Adams, Second: The na......