People v. Venticinque

• Decision Date: 22 December 1998
• Docket Number: Docket No. 109764,No. 11,11
• Citation: People v. Venticinque, 586 N.W.2d 732, 459 Mich. 90 (Mich. 1998)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald John VENTICINQUE, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 732

586 N.W.2d 732

459 Mich. 90

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Ronald John VENTICINQUE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 109764.

Calendar No. 11.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Nov. 10, 1998.

Decided Dec. 22, 1998.

[459 Mich. 92] Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, David G. Gorcyca, Prosecuting Attorney, Daniel L. Lemisch, Chief, Appellate Division, and Thomas R. Grden, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Pontiac, for the people.

Arthur Jay Weiss, Farmington Hills, for the defendant-appellee.

Norman Donker, President, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief, Research, Training and Appeals, Detroit, amicus curiae for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

OPINION

BOYLE, J.

The defendant was charged with the felony of misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle with intent to mislead, M.C.L. § 750.415(2);MSA 28.647(2).At the preliminary examination, the district court dismissed the felony charge and bound the defendant over on the misdemeanor charge of misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle without the intent to mislead.The circuit court reversed and remanded to the district court to bind over on the felony charge.The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the application.The defendant then appealed to this Court, and we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals as on leave granted.On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court judgment and remanded to the district court for trial of the misdemeanor charge.We now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

In April, 1991, Kenneth Rogers paid the defendant approximately $1,600 to replace the engine and transmission on Mr. Rogers' pick-up truck.¹ After the defendant completed the transmission work, Mr. Rogers inspected his car and the defendant informed him that he had placed a used General Motors "big block" engine in Mr. Rogers' truck.Mr. Rogers then drove his truck for more than one year.

In June, 1992, the police examined Mr. Rogers' pick-up truck and found the identification numbers missing on both the engine and transmission.Mr. Rogers informed the defendant that the police were examining his truck, and the defendant instructed Mr. Rogers to tell the police that he had obtained the engine through a friend at a Detroit tavern.The police confiscated the parts from Mr. Rogers' truck.Sometime thereafter, the defendant installed a new engine in Mr. Rogers' truck at no cost.

The police eventually questioned the defendant regarding the engine.The defendant first told police that he bought the engine at a swap meet in or near Flint.After his arrest, however, the defendant changed his story and informed the police that he had purchased the engine from a Jerry Quarles, who had brought it to the defendant's home on a truck.On that same occasion, the defendant also implied that a Warren Pawdas had completed all the work on Mr. Rogers' truck.

The police subsequently searched the defendant's garage and discovered tools that could have been used to remove the identification number from the engine, as well as numerical and alphabetical stamps that could be used to restamp new identification numbers on the car parts.

II

The statute in question, M.C.L. § 750.415;MSA 28.647, provides:

(1) A person who, without the intent to mislead another as to the identity of the vehicle, conceals or misrepresents the identity of a motor vehicle or of a mechanical device, by removing or defacing the manufacturer's serial number or the engine or motor number on the motor vehicle, or by replacing a part of the motor vehicle or mechanical device bearing the serial number or engine or motor number of the vehicle with a new part, upon which the proper serial number or engine or motor number has not been stamped, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) A person who, with the intent to mislead another as to the identity of a vehicle, conceals or misrepresents the identity of a motor vehicle or of a mechanical device, by removing or defacing the manufacturer's serial number or the engine or motor number on the motor vehicle, or by replacing a part of the motor vehicle or mechanical device bearing the serial number or engine or motor number of the vehicle, with a new part, upon which the proper serial number or engine or motor number has not been stamped, is guilty of a felony, and if the person is a licensed dealer the license shall be revoked.

(3) In all prosecutions under this section, possession by a person of a motor vehicle, or of a mechanical device with the manufacturer's serial number or the engine or motor number removed, defaced, destroyed or altered or with a part bearing the number or numbers replaced by one on which the proper number does not appear, shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this section.

As evidenced by the plain language of the statute, the felony and misdemeanor charges are differentiated only by the intent to mislead another regarding the identity of the vehicle.MCL 750.415(1), (2);MSA 28.647(1), (2).

At the preliminary examination, the prosecution presented the testimony of Mr. Rogers and of the investigating officer.After hearing the evidence summarized above, the examining magistrate dismissed the felony charges:

I'm going to make this a misdemeanor.There's no question about it.Now, we did have section one.Section two would be more applicable, but since you have section one, I cannot ignore section one because section one is much closer to the facts as presented to me than section two because Mr. Rogers had no notion that this engine might have a problem, so he couldn't--you have to--if you're going to mislead somebody, there has to be somebody that's being mislead [sic].

The prosecutor appealed, and the circuit court reinstated the felony charge.In its written opinion, the circuit court stated:

In this casedefendant admitted to having possessed the engine and transmission.The evidence further showed that the identification numbers had been removed.This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of either the felony or the misdemeanor under the statute.People v. Coon, 200 Mich.App. 244, 246-247[503 N.W.2d 746](1993).Since the prosecutor established a prima facie case of a felony, the magistrate lacked discretion to retain the matter as a misdemeanor.MCL 766.13[MSA 28.931].

The District Court abused its discretion in reducing the charges in this matter.The District Court is reversed and this matter is remanded for entry of an order of bindover on the felony charge.

On remand by this Court of the defendant's application for leave to appeal, ²the Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing with the district court that the evidence was insufficient to support a bindover on the felony charge.The majority explained:

In this case, there is simply no evidence that defendant intentionally attempted to mislead anyone about the identity of a vehicle.The only vehicle in question belonged to Rogers.It belonged to Rogers when he brought it to defendant for repairs, and defendant returned it to Rogers when the repairs were complete.It was not the vehicle itself whose identity defendant attempted to conceal or mislead.Although the evidence suggests that defendant attempted to conceal the illegitimate source of the engine, subsection (2) requires an intent to mislead as to the identity of the vehicle.Because the facts of this case do not suggest the defendant in any way intended to mislead anyone with regard to the identity of Rogers' vehicle, defendant could not be bound over for the felony charge proscribed in subsection (2).[Emphasis in the original.]

The prosecution argues that subsection (3) creates a statutory presumption of defendant's intent to mislead.SeePeople v. Battle, 161 Mich.App. 99, 409 N.W.2d 739(1987).Even if we assume that the prosecution's argument is correct, the presentation of a prima facie case does not automatically establish probable cause or require that a defendant be bound over for trial.People v. King, 412 Mich. 145, 312 N.W.2d 629(1981);People v. Tower, 215 Mich.App. 318, 544 N.W.2d 752(1996).In light of the evidence presented at the preliminary examination, the district court did not abuse its discretion by binding defendant over on the misdemeanor charge of misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle without intent to mislead.MCL 750.415(1);MSA 28.647(1).The circuit court erred in reversing the district court's decision.People v. Brannon, 194 Mich.App. 121, 486 N.W.2d 83(1992).

[Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued May 30, 1997(Docket No. 184949).]

The dissent took a broader view of the felony element regarding intent to mislead:

I would agree with the majority if I agreed with the interpretation given "identity of a motor vehicle" in their opinion, and if, like the magistrate, I agreed that it was Mr. Rogers, the truck owner, only, who was the object of the "intent to mislead" required by the statute.

There is little quarrel with the fact that the magistrate properly determined that the evidence demonstrated a prima facie case against defendant.He, admittedly, had possessed the engine and transmission with the numbers removed.

The magistrate found, however, that Rogers was not misled.I disagree, first, that it need be established that he was.Defendant's intent is the issue, not his success.Secondly, Rogers was mislead by the omission.Defendant did not disclose that he was returning Rogers' truck with replacement parts that would, by Rogers' possession of them, establish a prima facie case that Rogers violated M.C.L. § 750.415;MSA 28.647.Rogers certainly did not pay $1,600 to defendant only to have his truck disassembled a year later for confiscation of his engine and transmission, and to suffer the inconvenience of...