People v. Morton, 1
| Decision Date | 22 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,J,1 |
| Citation | 179 N.W.2d 379,384 Mich. 38 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy MORTON, Defendant-Appellant. une Term. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Dept., Thomas R. Lewis, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.
William R. Stackpoole, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
On November 9, 1966 Timothy Morton was convicted in a bench trial on each of two counts of an information which charged him with 1) Unlawfully driving away the automobile of another--violating M.C.L.A. § 750.413, (M.S.A.1954 Rev. § 28.645) and 2) Possession of a motor vehicle known to be stolen--proscribed by M.C.L.A. § 257.254, (M.S.A.1968 Rev. § 9.1954).
He does not appeal his conviction on the first count of unlawfully driving away the automobile of another, but does maintain that his conviction and sentence on the second count--is invalid and should be set aside.
Appellant claims that the 'possession' of the stolen vehicle established in the record will not support a conviction under M.C.L.A. § 257.254 for the 'possession' proscribed therein must be shown with some intent to fraudulently transfer title.
It is his contention that in view of its title--'The Motor Vehicle Title Act', and its stated purpose--'to protect titles of motor vehicles'--all parts of the act must be read to be germane only to conduct affecting titles or their fraudulent transfer.
Hence the proscribed possession of a vehicle known to be stolen, he argues, unless established along with intent to transfer the title, would permit the act to embrace more than one object, contrary to Const.1963, art. 4, § 24.
The prosecutor answers by saying that conviction under this statute does not require proof of intent to transfer title but only possession with knowledge the vehicle was stolen, and hence the conviction was valid.
We agree with the appellant, for we cannot read the statute so broadly as the prosecutor suggests.
Unless the possession be coupled with intent to fraudulently transfer title or participate in such transfer, its proscription in the Motor Vehicle Title Act would be inconsistent with the title of that act. For the title and stated purpose of the act is concerned with the transfer of titles, and penalizing possession unrelated to that consideration would be beyond the scope of the act. The statute then would indeed be afflicted with the infirmity appellant suggests--it would embrace more than one object.
This court has observed: 'It is well settled that anything included in a statute which is not germane to the general purposes as expressed in its title will bring such a statute within the prohibition of the Constitution.' Fornia v. Wayne Circuit Judge (1905), 140 Mich. 631, 104 N.W. 147. 1
Such reading as the prosecutor suggests would also permit the incongruous conclusion that anyone 'who is not an officer of the law engaged at the time in the performance of his duty as such officer' 2 who retrieved an automobile from a thief for the purpose of returning it to its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...or both, if warranted by the facts. People v. Morton, 16 Mich.App. 160, 167 N.W.2d 834 (1969), reversed on other grounds, 384 Mich. 38, 179 N.W.2d 379 (1970); see also People v. Kruper, 340 Mich. 114, 121--122, 64 N.W.2d 629 Genesee Prosecutor, supra, 386 Mich. at 684, 194 N.W.2d at 699. Th......
-
Advisory Opinion (Being 1975 Pa 227), In re
...the Register of Deeds Office of Kent County, a result inconsistent with the objective expressed in the title. See People v. Morton, 384 Mich. 38, 40, 179 N.W.2d 379 (1970); Maki v. City of East Tawas, 385 Mich. 151, 159, 188 N.W.2d 593 (1971).13 The quoted words appeared first in People ex ......
-
People v. Clark
...by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.1 M.C.L.A. § 257.254; M.S.A. § 9.1954.2 People v. Morton, 384 Mich. 38, 40, 41, 179 N.W.2d 379 (1970).3 M.C.L.A. § 750.360; M.S.A. § 28.592.4 In re Carey, 372 Mich. 378, 380, 126 N.W.2d 727 (1964); People v. Chattaway, 18......
-
People v. Nichols
...attention was directed by the State Appellate Defenders' Office to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Michigan in People v. Morton (1970), 384 Mich. 38, 179 N.W.2d 379. There the Supreme Court ruled that the statute under which defendants Nichols and Scott were convicted was restricted to ......