People v. Central Transport, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Central Transport, Inc.

256 N.W.2d 575, 76 Mich. App. 185, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 900

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1977

DocketDocket No. 29013

StatusPublished

This text of 256 N.W.2d 575 (People v. Central Transport, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Central Transport, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 575, 76 Mich. App. 185, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Quinn, J.

Central Transport, Inc., was convicted in district court of violating § 11.2 (overweight trucks) of plaintiffs traffic code ordinance. Central Transport, Inc. (hereafter defendant) appealed to circuit court, which reversed. The basis of reversal was that scienter was a necessary element of the offense charged and scienter had not been proved. Plaintiff appeals.

The sole issue on appeal is whether scienter is an element of the offense of which defendant was convicted.

The provisions of the ordinance parallel MCLA 257.716(a) and 257.724(c); MSA 9.2416(a) and 9.2424(c). Like MCLA 257.716(a); MSA 9.2416(a), plaintiff’s ordinance was amended prior to the violation here involved by eliminating the word "knowingly” from § 11.2A. Prior to amendment, the statute and ordinance read in part, "[i]t is a misdemeanor * * * to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved * * * ”. After amendment, this same portion reads, "[i]t is a misdemeanor * * * to cause or permit to be driven or moved * * * ”. The amendments came after the decision in People v Barkman, 22 Mich App 697; 177 NW2d 721 (1970), and demonstrate the intent of the legislative bodies to eliminate scienter as an element of the offense.

Reversed, conviction reinstated and remanded to district court for execution of sentence. Costs to plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quinn, J.

Central Transport, Inc., was convicted in district court of violating § 11.2 (overweight trucks) of plaintiffs traffic code ordinance. Central Transport, Inc. (hereafter defendant) appealed to circuit court, which reversed. The basis of reversal was that scienter was a necessary element of the offense charged and scienter had not been proved. Plaintiff appeals.

The sole issue on appeal is whether scienter is an element of the offense of which defendant was convicted.

The provisions of the ordinance parallel MCLA 257.716(a) and 257.724(c); MSA 9.2416(a) and 9.2424(c). Like MCLA 257.716(a); MSA 9.2416(a), plaintiff’s ordinance was amended prior to the violation here involved by eliminating the word "knowingly” from § 11.2A. Prior to amendment, the statute and ordinance read in part, "[i]t is a misdemeanor * * * to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved * * * ”. After amendment, this same portion reads, "[i]t is a misdemeanor * * * to cause or permit to be driven or moved * * * ”. The amendments came after the decision in People v Barkman, 22 Mich App 697; 177 NW2d 721 (1970), and demonstrate the intent of the legislative bodies to eliminate scienter as an element of the offense.

Reversed, conviction reinstated and remanded to district court for execution of sentence. Costs to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 N.W.2d 575, 76 Mich. App. 185, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-central-transport-inc-michctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack