Young v. Liquor Control Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

Young v. Liquor Control Commission

197 N.W.2d 295, 39 Mich. App. 101, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1406

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 29, 1972

DocketDocket 11581

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 N.W.2d 295 (Young v. Liquor Control Commission) 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

Young v. Liquor Control Commission, 197 N.W.2d 295, 39 Mich. App. 101, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1406 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Curiam.

May 31, 1967, defendant issued a complaint against plaintiff charging violation of the Administrative Code 1954, R 436.3(b). The specific charge was that an employee of plaintiff arranged for Officer Devolder to meet with a woman for purposes of prostitution. At the hearing on the complaint before Commissioner Jarboe, Officer Devolder was permitted to testify, over objection, as to the employee’s arrest and conviction of aiding and abetting prostitution on these same facts. A certified copy of the conviction was offered in evidence, objected to, and was taken under advisement by the commissioner.

May 14, 1968, the commissioner found that the violation charged had been committed and penalized plaintiff. The appeal board of defendant affirmed the commissioner by order of March 3,1969. March 17, 1969, plaintiff sought review in circuit court by way of superintending control in the nature of certiorari. The circuit court found prejudicial error in the receipt in evidence of the testimony relative to plaintiff’s employee’s conviction of aiding and abetting prostitution, and remanded the matter to the commission by order dated April 2, 1971. On leave granted, defendant appeals.

Assuming for the moment that it was error to receive in evidence the objected-to testimony of Officer Devolder, was this prejudicial error? We hold it was not.

At the appeal board hearing on August 29, 1968, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that Officer Devolder’s testimony was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Officer Devolder’s testimony was not rebutted nor contradicted. This testimony established the charge against plaintiff without the evidence ob *103 jected to. In such a situation, a trial court would not be reversed on appeal because of erroneous admission of evidence, Boardman v Boozewinkel, 121 Mich 320 (1899), and an administrative agency, which has wide latitude in the admission of evidence * will not be.

Discussion of the other issues raised on appeal is unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded to the commission for enforcement of its order of March 3, 1969.

*

Winokur v Board of Dentistry, 366 Mich 261 (1966).

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

Peb Curiam.

May 31, 1967, defendant issued a complaint against plaintiff charging violation of the Administrative Code 1954, R 436.3(b). The specific charge was that an employee of plaintiff arranged for Officer Devolder to meet with a woman for purposes of prostitution. At the hearing on the complaint before Commissioner Jarboe, Officer Devolder was permitted to testify, over objection, as to the employee’s arrest and conviction of aiding and abetting prostitution on these same facts. A certified copy of the conviction was offered in evidence, objected to, and was taken under advisement by the commissioner.

May 14, 1968, the commissioner found that the violation charged had been committed and penalized plaintiff. The appeal board of defendant affirmed the commissioner by order of March 3,1969. March 17, 1969, plaintiff sought review in circuit court by way of superintending control in the nature of certiorari. The circuit court found prejudicial error in the receipt in evidence of the testimony relative to plaintiff’s employee’s conviction of aiding and abetting prostitution, and remanded the matter to the commission by order dated April 2, 1971. On leave granted, defendant appeals.

Assuming for the moment that it was error to receive in evidence the objected-to testimony of Officer Devolder, was this prejudicial error? We hold it was not.

At the appeal board hearing on August 29, 1968, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that Officer Devolder’s testimony was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Officer Devolder’s testimony was not rebutted nor contradicted. This testimony established the charge against plaintiff without the evidence ob *103 jected to. In such a situation, a trial court would not be reversed on appeal because of erroneous admission of evidence, Boardman v Boozewinkel, 121 Mich 320 (1899), and an administrative agency, which has wide latitude in the admission of evidence * will not be.

Discussion of the other issues raised on appeal is unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded to the commission for enforcement of its order of March 3, 1969.

*

Winokur v Board of Dentistry, 366 Mich 261 (1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 N.W.2d 295, 39 Mich. App. 101, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-liquor-control-commission-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack