People v. Lewis, Docket No. 50765

• Decision Date: 09 May 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 50765
• Citation: 97 Mich.App. 650,296 N.W.2d 62
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Harold LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. 97 Mich.App. 650, 296 N.W.2d 62
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 62

296 N.W.2d 62

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Harold LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 50765.

97 Mich.App. 650, 296 N.W.2d 62

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

May 9, 1980.

Released for Publication Sept. 24, 1980.

[97 MICHAPP 651] James R. Neuhard, State App. Defender, Janet M. Tooley, Asst. State App. Defender, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., John L. Wildeboer, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and CARROLL, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of bringing whiskey and marijuana into a prison, contrary to M.C.L. § 800.281; M.S.A. § 28.1621. He was sentenced to three years, four months to five years imprisonment. Defendant appealed as of right to this Court which affirmed his conviction in an unpublished memorandum opinion. People v. Lewis (Docket No. 77-599, decided July 27, 1979). Defendant applied [97 MICHAPP 652] for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. In lieu of leave to appeal that Court vacated this Court's judgment and remanded the case to this Court with the direction that we address two issues raised before this Court but not specifically dealt with in our prior opinion. 408 Mich. 874 (1980).

Defendant argued that, as a matter of law, an inmate who does not leave prison cannot be convicted of bringing liquor and drugs into prison. Defendant claimed that he, as a convict, is not within the class of offenders described in the statute; he believes only outside suppliers are to be punished under the statute. We disagree.

The intent of M.C.L. § 800.281; M.S.A. § 28.1621, is to prohibit bringing enumerated contraband into prisons. It is designed to keep contraband out of prison, not to punish a particular group of people. Cf., People v. Kyllonen, 402 Mich. 135, 262 N.W.2d 2 (1978). Defendant's behavior was clearly proscribed by the statute because he employed agents to pick up whiskey and marijuana outside of the prison and smuggle it inside in garbage trucks. Others would unload the contraband, repackage it and deliver it to defendant. Thus, defendant was directly responsible for "bringing" the contraband into the prison.

Defendant also argued that there was insufficient evidence of guilt of a principal so defendant could not be convicted as an aider and abettor, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting, and that there was no evidence of furnishing contraband to other inmates.

The people submitted this case to the jury on the theory that defendant was guilty of bringing contraband into the prison as a principal or, in the [97 MICHAPP 653] alternative, as an aider and abettor. First of all, we reject defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient because we find sufficient evidence to convict him as a principal. Secondly, the evidence established that an inmate garbage truck driver knowingly brought whiskey and marijuana into the prison at the direction of defendant. There was sufficient evidence to hold this inmate guilty as a principal.

We also reject defendant's instructional claim. Since defendant did not object at trial, appellate review is precluded absent manifest injustice. People v. Parker, 76 Mich.App. 432, 452, 257 N.W.2d 109 (1977). We find no manifest injustice because the jury was properly instructed that they had to find a principal guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt before...