People v. Woods
| Decision Date | 22 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 142049 |
| Citation | 504 N.W.2d 24,200 Mich.App. 283 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sylvester WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Crim. Div., Research, Training, and Appeals, and Rosemary A. Gordon, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Bell & Gardner, P.C. by James W. McGinnis, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before NEFF, P.J., and GRIBBS and BRENNAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from an order of the Detroit Recorder's Court denying his motion to quash an information charging him with various offenses under the used motor vehicle parts transaction act, M.C.L. § 257.1351 et seq.; M.S.A. § 9.2705(21) et seq. The act went into effect on March 31, 1987. Defendant was charged with six felony counts of failing to record used car parts transactions, M.C.L. § 257.1355(a); M.S.A. § 9.2705(25)(a), two misdemeanor counts of failing to keep a vehicle repair facility open for police inspection as required by M.C.L. § 257.1352(3); M.S.A. § 9.2705(22)(3), M.C.L. § 257.1354(1); M.S.A. § 9.2705(24)(1), and two misdemeanor counts of failure to keep records required of a dealer for at least one year as required by M.C.L. § 257.1352(4); M.S.A. § 9.2705(22)(4), M.C.L. § 257.1354(1); M.S.A. § 9.2705(24)(1). Three felony counts related to the failure to record transactions involving transmissions, and three felony counts related to the failure to record transactions involving engines. We reverse.
Investigator Dennis Bielskis of the police auto theft section testified at defendant's preliminary examination that, on February 19, 1991, while he and four other officers were conducting routine inspections, they went to the adjoining offices of Brooks Auto Repair and Richardson's Collision. The licenses for both facilities were held in defendant's name. Defendant was not on the premises when the officers arrived. While Bielskis and the other officers waited for defendant's return, Bielskis noted several whole vehicles and several engines and transmissions, including a 1984 Chevrolet engine, a 1983 Buick engine, a 1983 Oldsmobile engine, a 1983 Ford transmission, a 1974 Oldsmobile transmission, and a 1979 Ford transmission. Bielskis saw a stack of invoices on a desk, but was not allowed to examine the invoices in defendant's absence.
When defendant arrived, Bielskis asked to see the records for each business. Defendant informed him that the licenses were on the wall, but refused to give him any more information. Bielskis asked to see the "police book," which is a chronological listing of titles of vehicles that are purchased, including parts removed after purchase in order to repair a vehicle. He also asked to see the "major component parts book," which is a listing of major auto components purchased, including the date of purchase and the dealer or place from whom such components were purchased, whether the component was put into another vehicle, the selling price of the component, and the name of the person to whom the component was sold. Defendant again told Bielskis that the licenses were on the wall, left the premises, and did not return. Bielskis was never shown the police book, the major components parts book, or any books of the business. He claimed that defendant refused to give them to him.
While being cross-examined during the preliminary examination, Bielskis testified that he knew that defendant had been the owner of Brooks Auto Repair since at least August 16, 1990, because defendant had been issued an unspecified violation by the licensing agency on that date. He also testified that defendant obtained a license for Richardson's Collision on April 4, 1986. He further testified that he believed that defendant had owned both businesses since 1985.
Bielskis admitted at the preliminary hearing that he had no knowledge of when the engines and transmissions on the premises at the time of the inspection had been purchased, who had purchased them, or from whom they had been purchased. Bielskis admitted that, because he did not see any books of the business, he did not know whether defendant had acquired or sold any vehicles or parts during the time that the act under which defendant was charged was in effect.
When the prosecution moved to bind defendant over on the charges, defense counsel argued that there had been no showing that defendant had engaged in the type of purchase or receipt of used parts that would bring him within the scope of the act and that there had been no showing that the parts had been purchased or received after the effective date of the act. The prosecutor responded that defendant's businesses were licensed motor vehicle repair facilities to which the act applies. The prosecutor further argued that, under a separate statute, M.C.L. § 257.1318; M.S.A. § 9.1720(18), repair facilities have been required since 1975 to maintain records of purchased or acquired used auto parts, and that defendant's failure to allow inspection of those records violates the act. The examining magistrate found that the charged offenses had been committed and were "current," and that there was probable cause to believe that defendant had committed them.
In Recorder's Court, defendant filed a motion to quash the information on the basis that the prosecutor had failed to show that defendant was a "dealer" for purposes of the act, that defendant had engaged in a used part transaction after the effective date of the act, or that defendant had purchased the used parts from a person other than a licensee. The trial court denied his motion.
Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on the basis that the used parts in question were not covered by the act because they were not from late model vehicles. The prosecutor thereafter dismissed the three felony counts related to the three transmissions. The trial court entered written orders denying the motions to quash and for reconsideration.
Defendant thereafter moved in this Court for leave to appeal, immediate consideration, and a stay of proceedings. This Court granted these motions. Defendant also moved for peremptory reversal pursuant to MCR 7.211(C)(4), but this Court denied the motion.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the information because the prosecutor failed to present any evidence regarding various elements of the charged offenses.
A defendant must be bound over for trial if evidence is presented at the preliminary examination that a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the defendant was the perpetrator. M.C.L. § 766.13; M.S.A. § 28.931; MCR 6.110(E); People v. Coddington, 188 Mich.App. 584, 591, 470 N.W.2d 478 (1991). At the preliminary examination, the prosecutor is not required to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there must be some evidence from which these elements can be inferred. Id. Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from the evidence may be sufficient to justify binding over a defendant. People v. Drayton, 168 Mich.App. 174, 176, 423 N.W.2d 606 (1988).
Probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime is established by a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person in the belief that the accused is guilty of the offense charged. People v. Vasher, 167 Mich.App. 452, 456, 423 N.W.2d 40 (1988). This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the examining magistrate unless an abuse of discretion is apparent. Coddington, supra. The standard for reviewing a decision for abuse of discretion is narrow; the result must have been so violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or an exercise of passion or bias. People v. Talley, 410 Mich. 378, 387, 301 N.W.2d 809 (1981).
The act under which defendant was charged imposes certain recording requirements on "dealers" or "agents" employed by dealers. The felony statute under which defendant was charged states in pertinent part:
A dealer or agent who does any of the following is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or a fine of $5,000.00, or both:
(a) Totally fails to record a transaction on a record of transaction form as required by section 2. [M.C.L. § 257.1355; M.S.A. § 9.2705(25).]
The misdemeanor statute under which defendant was charged states in pertinent part:
(1) A dealer who knowingly violates section 2(3), (4), or (5) is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of $1,000.00, or both. [M.C.L. § 257.1354; M.S.A. § 9.2705(24).]
Section 2 of the act requires dealers to maintain a permanent record of each transaction concerning the buying or receiving of any used motor vehicle part from a person other than a licensee. It provides in pertinent part:
(1) A dealer shall maintain a permanent record of each transaction concerning the buying or receiving of any used motor vehicle part from a person other than a licensee, on record of transaction forms provided for in subsection (5), legibly written in ink in the English language.
* * * * * *
(3) The record of transaction forms of a dealer and each used motor vehicle part received by a dealer as the result of a transaction shall be open to an inspection by the local police agency and the Michigan state police at all times during the ordinary business hours of the dealer. As a condition of doing business, a dealer shall be considered to have given consent to the inspection prescribed by this subsection. The record of transaction forms of a dealer shall not be open to inspection by the general public.
(4) Each record of a transaction shall be retained by the dealer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Perkins
...may be remote or virtually nonexistent”); People v. Tower, 215 Mich.App. 318, 320, 544 N.W.2d 752 (1996), citing People v. Woods, 200 Mich.App. 283, 288, 504 N.W.2d 24 (1993) (“[p]robable cause that the defendant has committed the crime charged is established by a reasonable ground of suspi......
-
People v. Richardson
...[in themselves] to warrant a cautious person in the belief that the accused is guilty of the offense charged." People v. Woods, 200 Mich.App. 283, 288, 504 N.W.2d 24 (1993), see also 3 Bouvier's Law Dictionary (3d ed.) at 2728. Justice Cooley noted the protective nature of the preliminary e......
-
People v. Torres
...fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or an exercise of passion or bias. People v. Woods, 200 Mich.App. 283, 288, 504 N.W.2d 24 (1993). Under MCR 6.431(B), on the defendant's motion, the court may order a new trial on any ground that would support ap......
-
People v. Hudson
...strong to warrant a cautious person in the belief that the accused is guilty of the offense charged," People v. Woods, 200 Mich.App. 283, 288, 504 N.W.2d 24 (1993). VI. Elements Of The The vulnerable adult abuse statute provides that a caregiver or other person with authority over the vulne......