Skidmore v. Czapiga

Decision Date18 April 1978
Docket NumberDocket No. 77-1685
Citation267 N.W.2d 150,82 Mich.App. 689
PartiesRoseann Lynn SKIDMORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter J. CZAPIGA, Defendant-Appellant. 82 Mich.App. 689, 267 N.W.2d 150
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

[82 MICHAPP 690] John N. Pavlis, Flint, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald Kuebler, Chief Appellate Counsel, Asst. Pros. Atty., Paul G. Miller, Sr., Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, P. J., and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr. and WALSH, JJ.

D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., Judge.

The instant appeal arises from a non-jury paternity suit following which the trial court entered an order of filiation.

During the course of trial the defendant attempted to present the testimony of three witnesses tending to establish the defense of "alibi". Following objection by the prosecutor, the trial court ruled such evidence to be inadmissible since defendant had not complied with the notice requirement of the "alibi" statute. M.C.L.A. § 768.20; M.S.A. § 28.1043.

In People v. McFadden, 347 Mich. 357, 79 N.W.2d 869 (1956), the Supreme Court held that notice of alibi was required in bastardy proceedings. Since that decision, however, in 1974 the Legislature amended the "alibi" statute limiting the same to "felony" cases. The pertinent portion of such amended statute reads as follows:

"If a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his defense testimony to establish an alibi * * * the defendant shall * * * file and serve upon the prosecuting attorney a notice in writing of his intention to claim that defense * * *."

The prior statute, the one in effect at the time of [82 MICHAPP 691] McFadden, supra, applied to criminal cases not cognizable by a justice of the peace. The court in McFadden, supra, found bastardy proceedings to be quasi-criminal in nature, held that such cases were not cognizable by a justice of the peace and further held that a defendant in such a proceeding, being entitled to the protection of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must comply with applicable provisions thereof that are prescribed for the benefit of the public, including notice of the defense of "alibi", and that the defendant in such proceedings must give notice of his intent to claim the defense in order to introduce evidence thereof at trial.

In M.C.L.A. § 750.7; M.S.A. § 28.197, the term "felony" is defined as follows:

" * * * an offense for which the offender, on conviction may be punished by death, or by imprisonment in state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Bowerman v. MacDonald
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1988
    ...136 N.W. 399 (1912).15 People v. Gill, 247 Mich. 479, 226 N.W. 214 (1929).16 McFadden was later distinguished in Skidmore v. Czapiga, 82 Mich.App. 689, 267 N.W.2d 150 (1978), in light of a revision in the statute governing notice of alibi defenses.17 Shortly after the passage of the Paterni......
  • People v. West, Docket No. 51481
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • March 31, 1982
    ...entirely superfluous. When the Legislature amends a statute, it is presumed to have knowledge of existing laws. Skidmore v. Czapiga, 82 Mich.App. 689, 691, 267 N.W.2d 150 (1978), lv. den. 403 Mich. 810 (1978). As such, I believe the amendment to M.C.L. Sec. 750.529; M.S.A. Sec. 28.797 const......
  • Stamadianos v. Stamadianos
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 7, 1984
    ...Lehman. It is presumed that when the Legislature amends a statute it has knowledge of the existing law. Skidmore v. Czapiga, 82 Mich.App. 689, 691, 267 N.W.2d 150 (1978), lv. den. 403 Mich. 810 (1978). Had the Legislature intended to abrogate the rule of Lehman by codifying venue provisions......
  • People v. Reuther
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 17, 1981
    ...grades and that the Legislature in amending a statute must be presumed to have knowledge of existing laws. Skidmore v. Czapiga, 82 Mich.App. 689, 691, 267 N.W.2d 150 (1978), lv. den. 403 Mich. 810 (1978). In my opinion, this presumption should only be resorted to if all other doctrines of s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT