Case Title: PEOPLE OF MI V JACK CHAVIS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________ 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
Chie f Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED APRIL 8, 2003  
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
Plaintiff-Appellant,  
v 
No. 120112  
JACK CHAVIS,  
Defendant-Appellee.  
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH  
WEAVER, J.  
After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant was  
convicted in a bench trial of violating MCL 750.411a(1), which  
makes it a crime to intentionally make “a false report of the  
commission of a crime to a member of the Michigan state  
police, a sheriff or deputy sheriff, a police officer of a  
city or village, or any other peace officer of this state  
 
knowing the report is false . . . .”1  The issue presented is  
whether defendant may be convicted of filing a false report  
pursuant to this statute, where defendant provided false  
details concerning the crime. We hold that defendant may be  
convicted pursuant to the statute, and, therefore, we reverse  
the Court of Appeals reversal of defendant’s conviction.  
FACTS  
On April 14, 1998, defendant called 911 and reported that  
he had been carjacked.  Officer Robert Sanchez responded to  
the call.  He testified that he and his partner met defendant  
at South Fort and Francis streets in the city of Detroit and  
that defendant informed them that he had been carjacked by  
four unknown black males.  Defendant informed Officer Sanchez  
that he was carjacked in the area of South Fort and Outer  
Drive and that the carjackers kicked him out of the car at  
South Fort and Francis.  Defendant indicated to the officer  
that one of the men had put a gun to defendant’s head and two  
of the other men had jumped into the car with baseball bats  
and that he had been beaten with a baseball bat.  He informed  
the officer that the men had stolen his wallet, a gold  
necklace, and a gold ring.  Officer Sanchez and his partner  
made a report of the carjacking.  Defendant’s car, a Honda  
Civic CRS, was found about an hour later being driven by  
1 Defendant was sentenced to thirty days in jail and the 
remainder of one year on probation.  
2  
William Bonner. After a brief chase, Mr. Bonner crashed the  
car into a tree and was arrested.  
Officer 
Sanchez 
testified 
that 
he 
informed 
defendant 
that  
he did not believe that defendant was actually carjacked.  He  
explained that his assessment was based on defendant’s  
demeanor, which he described as defensive and hostile, and the  
fact that defendant did not live in the area and gave no  
explanation for why he was in the area. Officer Sanchez also  
testified that he did not observe any physical injury to  
defendant and that defendant did not request any kind of  
medical attention.  
Detective Sergeant Randell Schnotala testified that at  
the time of the incident, he was assigned to the carjacking  
task force working out of Detroit Police headquarters.  He was  
assigned to investigate the reported carjacking.  After  
speaking 
with 
Mr. 
Bonner, 
Detective 
Schnotala 
became  
suspicious of the truthfulness of the report filed by  
defendant and made several attempts to contact defendant to  
discuss the incident.  A few days later, defendant telephoned  
Detective Schnotala and agreed to meet the detective at police  
headquarters.  
Detective Schnotala testified that he immediately  
informed defendant that defendant was not under arrest, that  
defendant did not have to speak with him, and that defendant  
could leave at any time. Detective Schnotala explained that  
3  
 
he had some questions and concerns about the report that had  
been filed.  He testified that defendant then told him that  
the report was not true “beginning with the location.”  
Detective Schnotala stated that defendant informed him that  
defendant was a crack cocaine user and that he had given a  
false location because he did not want the police to know why  
he was in the area. Detective Schnotala testified that  
[a]t that time I told him we could reduce this to 
writing, take care of matters, get him on his way. 
He could go about the business of getting his car 
back, but that he would be charged with filing a 
false police report.  At this time he became very 
agitated with me and refused to talk any more about 
the incident and stormed out of my office.  
Detective Schnotala explained that he informed defendant that  
he would be charged with filing a false police report because  
defendant said that the report he had filed was not true.  
Defendant testified that he was in southwest Detroit on  
April 14, 1998, to purchase crack cocaine.  He spotted the  
supplier from whom he had purchased crack cocaine earlier in  
the day and let the supplier get into defendant’s car.  
Defendant informed the supplier that he wanted $20 worth of  
crack cocaine, and they drove to a house.2  The supplier went  
into the house to get the crack cocaine.  Defendant stated  
that when the supplier left the house, the supplier returned  
to the car.  As the supplier was again sitting in the  
2 On cross-examination, defendant stated that he did not 
drive the supplier to the house—they were already there.  
4  
passenger seat showing defendant the crack cocaine, defendant  
heard the hatchback of his car open.  Two men entered the car.  
Defendant testified that the supplier pulled the keys out of  
the ignition and that one of the men in the back pointed a gun  
at defendant, demanding that defendant give them everything  
defendant had.  Defendant stated that he told them that the  
gunman would have to kill defendant because defendant “had a  
lot of gold on.”  
Defendant testified that the gunman then put down the gun  
and began choking him from behind until he passed out and that  
the supplier was hitting defendant. When defendant “came to  
[he] was half in [his] car and half out.” Defendant further  
explained that when he “came to,” his jewelry, his watch, his  
necklace, his rings, and his wallet had been taken. He stated  
that he observed four men walking down the road and ran after  
them.  He testified that the men surrounded him and began  
attacking him, one of them beating him with a pool cue and  
another hitting him in the jaw.3  He stated that he received  
a cut on his head and felt like he had broken his hand during  
the attack after being hit with the pool cue.  Defendant  
testified that when he asked them to give him his keys so that  
he could go home, they told him to move away from his car.  
Two or three of the men jumped into his car and drove off.  
3 Defendant denied that he had stated that one of the men  
had a baseball bat.  
5  
Defendant testified that he then ran to Fort Street,  
entered a restaurant, and called the police. He stated that  
he told police that he was at the gas station and that he had  
just left his sister’s house when he was carjacked and made to  
drive to the gas station. Defendant stated that he had lied  
about the location because he did not want anyone to know that  
he was  buying crack cocaine. He stated that he showed the  
cut to the officer and indicated that his hand felt like it  
might be broken.  However, when the officers asked if he  
wanted an ambulance, he 
declined. 
 
Defendant 
acknowledged that  
when he spoke with Detective Schnotala, he did not give the  
detective any specific details or provide any written  
statement about what had actually occurred.  
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found  
defendant guilty of the charge. The trial court stated:  
This is somewhat of an interesting case in the 
sense that he’s charged with filing a false report 
of a felony.  
And without going into a lot of detail as far 
as fact finding goes, I do believe from all the 
evidence and the testimony that the defendant, Mr. 
Chavis, was carjacked. I believe that his car was  
taken from him with the use of force, and that he 
didn’t voluntarily turn it over or surrender it.  
And that’s essentially what happened.  
However, in this case, because of, and I 
believe some of the defendant’s testimony, too. I  
believe his testimony about using crack.  I believe  
his testimony about going around looking for crack 
and having contact with various incendiary people 
in terms of seeking out some crack cocaine.  
6  
 
And I do also believe and find that the  
defendant did tell, did lie to the police about how 
it happened, where it happened, and some other 
miscellaneous details.  
So on the one hand I believe that the  
defendant did make some false statements and give 
some false facts [sic] about the crime itself.  And  
I do believe that in essence the defendant was the  
victim of a carjacking.  
And when the defendant told the police officer 
those false facts, he knew that they were false and 
deliberately made those false statements.  
And for that reason, I’m going to find the 
defendant guilty of the charge.  
I find that the elements of the offense have  
been made out.  
Defendant appealed, and the 
Court 
of 
Appeals 
reversed the  
conviction.  246 Mich App 741; 635 NW2d 67 (2001).  The Court  
of Appeals explained:  
Here, the statute proscribes the intentional 
making of “a false report of the commission of a  
crime.”  MCL 750.411a(1) (emphasis added).  The  
plain language of the statute provides that those 
who make police reports falsely claiming that a 
crime has been committed are guilty of making a 
report of a false crime. See, e.g., People v Lay, 
336 Mich 77; 57 NW2d 453 (1953) (the defendant was 
convicted, under the predecessor of § 411a, of 
making a “fictitious report of the commission of 
any crime” after falsely telling the police that he 
had put poison in a bottle of home-delivered milk).1  
To 
construe 
the 
statute 
to 
encompass 
false  
information concerning the details of an actual 
crime would be a significant departure from the 
plain language of the statute.  Because the false  
information reported by defendant in the present 
case did not pertain to whether a crime occurred, 
the conviction for filing a false report of the 
commission of a crime cannot be sustained.2  
Accordingly, we reverse defendant’s conviction and 
sentence.  
7  
___________________________________________________ 
 
___________________________________________________ 
 
 
1 Our research has unveiled no Michigan cases 
where a defendant was convicted of the crime of  
making a false report of the commission of a crime 
for lying about details other than whether a crime 
had actually been committed.  Our research of  
federal and foreign states’ case law has not  
unveiled any cases where a defendant was convicted 
of this type of crime for lying about details other 
than whether a crime had actually been committed. 
See, e.g., Smith v Arkansas, 1999 WL 200671  
[unpublished opinion] (Ark App, 1999) (false report 
that husband broke into home); People v Trimble, 
181 Ill App 3d 355; 537 NE2d 363 (1989) (defendant 
falsely told police his car was stolen);  State v  
Matilla, 339 NW2d 54, 55 (Minn, 1983) (defendant 
falsely reported being burglarized); State v  
Kachanis, 119 RI 439, 440; 379 A2d 915 (1977) 
(defendant falsely reported his car stolen).  
2 The trial court’s finding that a carjacking 
actually occurred is unchallenged on appeal.  
[246 Mich App 743-744.]  
On April 30, 2002, this Court granted the prosecutor’s  
application for leave to appeal. 466 Mich 860 (2002).  
STANDARD OF REVIEW  
This case concerns an issue of statutory interpretation.  
Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.  
People v Thousand, 465 Mich 149, 156; 631 NW2d 694 (2001).  
ANALYSIS  
MCL 750.411a(1) provides:  
Except as provided in subsection (2), a person 
who intentionally makes a false report of the 
commission of a crime to a member of the Michigan 
state police, a sheriff or deputy sheriff, a police  
8  
 
 
officer of a city or village, or any other peace 
officer of this state knowing the report is false 
is guilty of a crime as follows:  
(a) If the report is a false report of a  
misdemeanor, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor 
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 
days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.  
(b) If the report is a false report of a  
felony, the person is guilty of a felony punishable 
by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine 
of not more than $2,000.00, or both. [Emphasis 
added.]  
When interpreting a statute, our goal is to ascertain and  
give effect to the intent of the Legislature.  People v  
Koonce, 466 Mich 515, 518; 648 NW2d 153 (2002). We begin by  
reviewing the plain language of the statute.  If the language  
is clear and unambiguous, no further construction is  
necessary, and the statute is enforced as written.  Id.;  
Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d  
686 (2001).  
The issue in the present case centers on whether lying  
about details concerning a crime constitutes “a false report  
of the commission of a crime . . . .”4  MCL 750.411a(1).  The  
Court of Appeals and the dissent construed this language to  
mean that only “those who make police reports falsely claiming  
that a crime has been committed are guilty of making a report  
of a false crime.” 246 Mich App 743. We disagree with this  
4 Defendant admitted to the police officer that he had  
lied.
 Accordingly, there is no dispute about whether 
defendant’s statements were made intentionally and knowingly.  
9  
 
interpretation and find it inconsistent with the plain  
language of the statute.  
As placed in the statute, the word “false” modifies the  
word “report,” not the word “crime,” as the Court of Appeals  
and the dissent’s interpretations suggest. The word “false”  
is defined as  
1. Not true or correct; erroneous; wrong: a false  
statement.
 2. 
Uttering or declaring what is  
untrue; lying: a false witness. 3. Not faithful  
or loyal; treacherous; hypocritical: a false  
friend.
 4. 
Tending to deceive or mislead;  
deceptive: a false impression.  5. 
Not genuine; 
counterfeit . . . . [Random House Webster’s College  
Dictionary (1997).]  
The word “report” is defined as “1. A detailed account of an  
event, situation, etc. usu. based on observation or inquiry.  
2.  A statement or announcement. . . .”  Id. 
It is not  
disputed that defendant made untrue and misleading statements  
when he provided his original account of events to the  
officers.5  First, defendant clearly acknowledged that he had  
lied about where the carjacking occurred and what he was doing  
at the time the carjacking occurred.  Second, he informed  
police that he did not know any of the perpetrators when, in  
fact, he knew one of them from his previous purchase of crack  
cocaine.  Third, although defendant stated that he had been  
5 While the false statements in the present case occurred 
in defendant’s initial communications with 
the 
police, 
we 
note 
that the definition of “report” does not require that the 
statements always be made at the outset of an investigation. 
The definition could cover subsequent communications as well.  
10  
 
 
beaten with a pool cue or baseball bat, resulting in a cut to  
his head and an injury to his hand, the officer stated that he  
observed no physical injuries on defendant and that defendant  
did not request any medical attention.  Thus, in describing  
what had occurred, defendant made a false report.  
Our inquiry does not end there, however. Following the  
phrase “false report” in the statute are the words “of the  
commission of a crime.”  Defendant’s false report must be “of  
the commission of a crime.” “Commission” is defined as “the  
act of committing or perpetrating a crime . . . .”  Id.  
Replacing the word “commission” with its definition, the  
statute prohibits making a false report of “the act of  
committing or perpetrating” a crime. One who provides false  
details about the crime has made a false report of “the act of  
committing or perpetrating” a crime.  Thus, the plain language  
of the statute is not limited to only those situations where  
no crime has been committed; it also applies where one reports  
false details about the crime.6  Because defendant reported  
6 The dissent criticizes our opinion as failing to 
provide guidance to the bench and bar and suggests that it 
will inhibit victims from reporting crimes for fear they will 
be convicted for 
insignificant 
misstatements. 
 
We would remind  
the 
dissent 
that 
the 
statute 
requires 
a 
person 
to  
intentionally make a false report of the commission of a 
crime.  This intent requirement should obviate many of the 
“problems” that the dissent asserts our opinion will create.  
The dissent also criticizes our opinion as allowing the 
prosecutor “unfettered discretion,” post at 7, in determining  
when to bring charges under the statute.  It is invariably the 
(continued...)  
11  
 
false details about the crime, he can be convicted under the  
statute.7  
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court  
of Appeals and reinstate defendant’s conviction.  
Elizabeth A. Weaver  
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman  
6(...continued) 
case that the prosecutor always has great discretion in 
deciding whether to file charges. Such executive branch power 
is an established part of our constitutional structure. Any 
apprehension that the prosecutor may abuse this power should 
be tempered, in part, by the knowledge that there are 
significant 
systemic 
protections 
afforded 
defendants, 
including the defendant’s right to a preliminary examination 
and right to a jury trial.  Moreover, there are other 
protections against the misuse of power that spring from 
daily scrutiny by the media as well as from periodic 
elections, which call all office holders to account to their 
constituents.  
7 Our interpretation and application of the statute is 
consistent with one of the purposes of the statute, which is 
to avoid distracting the police 
and 
misusing 
police 
resources.  
12  
___________________________________ 
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N  
SUPREME COURT  
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
Plaintiff-Appellant,  
v 
No. 120112  
JACK CHAVIS,  
Defendant-Appellee.  
KELLY, J. (dissenting).  
The 
majority 
stretches 
the 
statutory 
phrase 
"false 
report  
of the commission of a crime" in MCL 750.411a(1) to mean a  
report of false details concerning the commission of a crime.  
This interpretation goes beyond the plain meaning of the words  
the Legislature used.  
I agree with the Court of Appeals that "[b]ecause the  
false information reported by defendant in the present case  
did not pertain to whether a crime occurred, the conviction  
for filing a false police report cannot be sustained."  246  
Mich App 741, 743; 635 NW2d 67 (2000).  To the extent that  
this statute is ambiguous, traditional judicial construction  
favors my interpretation.  Parenthetically, the majority  
ignores the inherent question that it raises:  how significant  
must a falsehood be to trigger criminal liability under the  
statute?  
I  
The majority holds that "the plain language of the  
statute is not limited to only those situations where no crime  
has been committed; it also applies where one reports false  
details about the crime." 
Ante at 12. It arrives at this  
conclusion by defining the words "report" and "commission."  
These words, it concludes, refer to a "detailed account" of  
"the act of committing a crime."  
The majority's interpretation does not accurately  
construe the plain meaning of the statute's words because it  
glosses over the meaning of "the commission of a crime."  The  
only facts that establish "the act of committing a crime" are  
those that satisfy the elements of a criminal statute.  It  
follows then that one violates the statute only in falsely  
alleging facts that comprise the elements of a criminal  
statute.  Extraneous details do not pertain to whether a crime  
has been committed.  
An example clarifies the point.  MCL 750.72 makes it a  
crime to burn a dwelling house.  The facts establishing the  
commission of that crime are limited to those showing (1)  
wilful or malicious (2) burning (3) of a dwelling house, its  
2  
 
 
contents, or any building within its curtilage.  A false  
report that the perpetrator wore black clothes while setting  
the fire when, in fact, he wore white does not constitute the  
report of a false crime, i.e., a false report of the  
commission of a crime.  Rather, it constitutes facts not  
essential to the crime.  
The majority's interpretation of MCL 750.411a(1) would  
render criminal the report of black clothes in my example.  It  
effectively reads the limiting phrase "of the commission"  
right out of the statute.  Doing so ignores the well­
established canon of avoiding an interpretation that renders  
part of a statute nugatory or mere surplusage.  Koontz v  
Ameritech Services, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 312; 645 NW2d 34  
(2002).  
For the reasons stated, I interpret MCL 750.411a to  
prohibit only the reporting of a false crime, meaning the  
false reporting of facts that establish the commission of a  
crime.  Unlike the majority's analysis, this interpretation  
comports with the plain language of the statute and the "fair  
import" of the words used. MCL 750.2.  
This Court made a proper statutory interpretation in  
People v Lay, 336 Mich 77; 57 NW2d 453 (1953).  There, it  
construed the statute from which MCL 750.411a(1) was drawn.  
It affirmed the defendant's conviction after he falsely  
reported to the police that he had poisoned a bottle of home­
3  
 
 
 
 
  
delivered milk. 
The Court held that the defendant's  
conviction was proper because he alleged a crime that had not  
been committed.  He alleged facts that were false and that  
satisfied the statutory elements of the crime.  
Here, unlike in Lay, the state charged defendant for  
falsely reporting where in Detroit the carjacking crime  
occurred and why he was in that area.  The carjacking statute,  
MCL 750.529a, requires a showing that a person, (1) by force  
or threat of force, (2) took a motor vehicle (3) in the  
presence of the lawful possessor of it.  Defendant did not  
falsely report any of the facts establishing the elements of  
the carjacking.  In the words of the trial court, "Mr. Chavis  
[] was carjacked. [H]is car was taken from him with the use of  
force, and . . . he didn't voluntarily turn it over or  
surrender it."  
Because 
defendant 
truthfully 
reported 
these, 
the  
essential aspects of the crime, he should not be chargeable  
under MCL 750.411a.  The false statements he made were  
immaterial to the commission of the crime of carjacking.  
Accordingly, I would affirm the Court of Appeals reversal of  
defendant's conviction.  
II  
When reasonable but differing interpretations of a  
statute exist, the statute is ambiguous. In re MCI, 460 Mich  
396, 411; 596 NW2d 164 (1999).
 Hence, because the majority's  
4  
reading of the statute is arguably reasonable, as is mine, the  
incompatibility of our interpretations renders this statute  
ambiguous.
 After judicial construction, however, the  
ambiguity 
is 
resolved 
in 
a 
manner 
that 
favors 
my  
interpretation. 
 
MCL 750.411a(1) is the part of the statute under  
consideration here.  It reads "a person who intentionally  
makes a false report of the commission of a crime to a member  
of the Michigan state police . . . or any other peace officer  
of this state knowing the report is false is guilty of a crime  
. . . ." The two subsections under subsection 1 clarify its  
meaning.1  Subsection (1)(a) makes a false report of a  
misdemeanor itself a misdemeanor and lists the penalty.  
Subsection (1)(b) makes a false report of a felony itself a  
felony and lists a far greater penalty than does subsection  
(1)(a).  
If the majority's interpretation of subsection 1 were  
correct, a report falsifying nonessential details of a crime  
would draw a much greater penalty if the crime were a felony  
than if it were a misdemeanor.  However, the details might be  
the same for each crime, e.g., the perpetrator wore black.  It  
1 2A Singer, Statutes & Statutory Construction (6 ed, 
2000), § 47:06, pp 226-227 ("[I]t is an elementary rule of 
construction that all sections of an act relating to the same 
subject matter should be considered together unless to do so 
would be plainly contrary to the legislative intent.").  
5  
is not readily apparent why the Legislature would have  
distinguished in terms of criminal severity and penalty  
between a report of false details of a felony and a report of  
the same false details of a misdemeanor.  
It is obvious, however, why the Legislature would have  
distinguished in terms of criminal severity and penalty  
between a report of a false misdemeanor and a report of a  
false felony. There, the reports would be different. One of  
the crimes would be more serious, hence a false report of it  
would deserve a more severe penalty.  
Therefore, any ambiguity in "false report of the  
commission of a crime" is best resolved to mean that the  
report to be criminalized is the report of a false crime.  
III  
I note that the majority fails to deliver any guidance to  
the bench and bar about how to apply its interpretation of  
this statute.  Specifically, it fails to address how material  
a falsified detail must be in order to trigger criminal  
liability under the statute.  Did the Legislature intend to  
criminalize the intentional falsification of even the most  
insignificant detail of a reported crime?  This would be  
permitted under the majority's interpretation.  If some false  
details should be made crimes and others not, where does one  
draw the line? Without guidance on this issue, the bringing  
of charges under this statute becomes a matter of the  
6  
 
  
prosecutor's unfettered discretion, raising other legal  
problems.2  
The interpretation of the statute that I propose, by  
contrast with the majority's, limits this offense to the  
falsification of certain identifiable information. 
My  
interpretation not only comports with the Legislature's  
intent, 
it 
establishes 
clear 
boundaries 
of 
which  
falsifications are criminal, thus providing comprehensible  
guidance to our courts and our citizens.  
Additionally, my interpretation avoids another problem  
that looms in the majority's broad reading of the statute:  
that it may inhibit victims from reporting crimes for fear  
that they may be convicted themselves for an insignificant  
misstatement of fact to law enforcement officers.  
2The majority takes issue with my reference to the 
dangers of the prosecution exercising unfettered discretion. 
The United States Supreme Court expressed the concern I raise 
when it made its decision in the case of United States v  
Armstrong, 517 US 456, 464; 116 S Ct 1480; 134 L Ed 2d 687 
(1996), quoting Oyler v Boles, 368 US 448, 456; 82 S Ct 501; 
7 L Ed 2d 446 (1962).  There, it found that unfettered 
discretion in the prosecution can result in a violation of the 
constitutional right to due process of law.  More to the point 
in this case, my concern is that the majority's expansive 
interpretation of MCL 750.411a allows too easily for the 
statute's selective enforcement.  It thereby increases the 
possibility that the statute will be used as a coercive tool 
in violation of the constitutional constraints that govern 
prosecutors.
 
While 
the 
majority 
enumerates 
current  
protections from prosecutorial abuse, I am unconvinced that 
the existence of these protections excuses this Court's 
failure to provide the guidance that could afford more  
immediate and certain protection.  
7  
III  
Accordingly, 
I 
would 
affirm the conclusion reached by 
the  
Court of Appeals.  This Court should interpret MCL 750.411a(1)  
to criminalize only the false reporting of facts that  
establish the commission of a crime.  As defendant made no  
such false statement, the Court of Appeals reached the correct  
conclusion in reversing his conviction.  
Marilyn Kelly  
8