Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

June 1, 2012 

144639-40 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144639 

 COA: 304593 

Oakland CC: 2010-230991-FH 

LEON JERMANE WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144640 

 COA: 304702 

Oakland CC: 2011-236898-FH 

LEON JERMANE WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 MARKMAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the denial of defendant’s application for leave to appeal because his 

alleged actions unquestionably fell within the range of conduct proscribed by 

MCL 752.795, and there is no contention by defendant that the statute is unconstitutional. 

However, I share the dissenting justice’s concern that MCL 752.795 encompasses an 

extremely broad range of conduct, and further believe that it potentially extends well 

beyond even its application in the instant case. Therefore, I write separately to urge the 

Legislature to consider whether it intends to criminalize the full range of conduct to 

which the statute potentially extends. 
2

 YOUNG, C.J., concurs in the statement of MARKMAN, J. 

 MARILYN KELLY, J. (dissenting). 

 I would grant leave to appeal. Defendant will be tried on two counts of violating 

MCL 752.795, Michigan’s fraudulent-computer-access statute. This law forbids 

unauthorized access of a computer or computer program “to acquire, alter, damage, 

delete or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, 

computer system, or computer network.”1

 A person convicted of violating MCL 752.795 

is subject to a possible prison term of 5 years or a fine of as much as $10,000, or both.2

 

Repeat offenders may receive up to a 10-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 

$50,000, or both.3

 The factual basis for one of the charges against defendant is that he allegedly 

accessed his wife’s e-mail account without her permission. This may be the first time in 

the 33 years since MCL 752.795 became law and the 16 years since it was amended to its 

present form that the statute has been used as the basis for criminal charges for the 

behavior in question. 

 Defendant argues that the language of MCL 752.795 is ambiguous. Also, he 

insists that the statute was not intended to criminalize a person’s reading of his or her 

spouse’s e-mails. He provides examples of innocuous conduct for which a person could 

be criminally prosecuted under the prosecution’s reading of the statute.4

 Defendant also 

raises a significant question about whether Internet-based e-mail accounts fit within the 

statute’s reference to “a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer 

network.” 

 I think defendant’s arguments are worthy of this Court’s review. Accordingly, I 

 

1

 MCL 752.795. 

2

 MCL 752.797(2)(a). 

3

 MCL 752.797(2)(b). 

4

 For example, defendant argues that a parent could be convicted for monitoring his or 

her child’s Internet and e-mail usage. He argues that a person could be convicted for 

using the calculator or word-processing programs on his or her spouse’s computer 

without permission. 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 1, 2012 

p0529 

 

3

would grant leave to appeal to consider whether the statute’s language applies to 

defendant’s conduct and, if so, whether this prosecution is based on an overbroad and 

unreasonable reading of the statute. 

 Finally, I note that the Legislature is considering a bill introduced specifically 

because of this prosecution that would exempt defendant’s conduct from the scope of 

MCL 752.795.5

 Given that this Court has declined to consider the issues involved here, 

the Legislature would do well to consider whether it intends that MCL 752.795 subject 

the behavior involved here to criminal penalties. 

 I respectfully dissent and would grant defendant’s application for leave to appeal. 

 

5

 HB 4532 (introduced April 12, 2011).