People v. Rogers
Docket Number | 346348 |
Decision Date | 05 August 2021 |
Citation | 338 Mich.App. 312,979 N.W.2d 747 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deonton Autez ROGERS, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jon P. Wojtala, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, for the people.
David R. Cripps, Detroit, for defendant.
Jay D. Kaplan, Livonia, and Daniel S. Korobkin for the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan and John A. Knight for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Amicus Curiae.
Before: Gadola, P.J., and Servitto and Redford, JJ.
ON REMAND
This case returns to this Court on remand from our Supreme Court for reconsideration, in light of Bostock v. Clayton Co., Georgia , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 207 L.Ed.2d 218 (2020), of the prosecution's challenge to the trial court's order dismissing the charge against defendant of ethnic intimidation, MCL 750.147b. We reverse the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to quash the ethnic-intimidation charge, reinstate the ethnic-intimidation charge, and remand for further proceedings.
The basic facts of this case were set forth in this Court's prior opinion as follows:
This Court granted the prosecution leave to appeal1 the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to quash and challenging the trial court's dismissal of the ethnic-intimidation charge. This Court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that although the trial court had employed erroneous reasoning, the trial court nonetheless reached the correct result. Rogers , 331 Mich.App. at 16, 951 N.W.2d 50. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1731, and the Michigan Supreme Court subsequently vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded this case to us for reconsideration in light of Bostock . Rogers , 506 Mich. 949, 950 N.W.2d 48.
We review a trial court's decision regarding a motion to quash an information for an abuse of discretion.
People v. March , 499 Mich. 389, 397, 886 N.W.2d 396 (2016) ; People v. Dowdy , 489 Mich. 373, 379, 802 N.W.2d 239 (2011). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
People v. Babcock , 469 Mich. 247, 269, 666 N.W.2d 231 (2003). To the extent that a trial court bases its decision regarding a motion to quash an information on an interpretation of the law, we review that interpretation de novo. March , 499 Mich. at 397, 886 N.W.2d 396. Whether a defendant's conduct falls within the scope of a criminal statute is a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo. People v. Flick , 487 Mich. 1, 8-9, 790 N.W.2d 295 (2010). When a trial court makes an error of law, it necessarily abuses its discretion. People v. Duncan , 494 Mich. 713, 723, 835 N.W.2d 399 (2013).
The prosecution contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the charge of ethnic intimidation asserted against defendant under MCL 750.147b. That statute provides, in pertinent part:
Before the trial court, defendant moved to quash the ethnic-intimidation charge, arguing, in part, that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that defendant had the specific intent to harass the complainant because of her gender. Defendant further argued that the ethnic-intimidation statute does not apply to situations involving transgender people. The trial court agreed in part, concluding that because the term "gender" is defined in the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq. , as including only masculine, feminine, and neuter genders, the ethnic-intimidation statute did not apply to protect transgender people.
The goal of statutory interpretation is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. See Dowdy , 489 Mich. at 379, 802 N.W.2d 239. If a statute's language is clear and unambiguous, we enforce the language as written, and judicial construction is neither required nor permitted. People v. Gardner , 482 Mich. 41, 50, 753 N.W.2d 78 (2008). The word "gender" is not specifically defined within MCL 750.147b. The trial court in this case therefore considered the word "gender" as defined in the Penal Code, at MCL 750.10, and concluded that as defined in that section the word "gender" does not include "transgender."
We conclude that the trial court was misguided in relying on that provision to conclude that transgender is not a part or subset of "gender" for purposes of the ethnic-intimidation statute. MCL 750.10 states, in relevant part, that "[t]he masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter genders." MCL 750.10 provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial