Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1973/389-mich-557-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 00:53:21
Document Index: 339173263

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 25', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 12', '§ 196', '§ 36', '§ 47', 'art 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 14', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 12']

People v. McFarlin :: 1973 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Michigan Case Law › Michigan Supreme Court Decisions › 1973 › People v. McFarlin
389 Mich. 557 (1973)
208 N.W.2d 504
PEOPLE v. McFARLIN PEOPLE v. RABB PEOPLE v. LOOMIS
Submitted April 5, 1973.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, *560 Appellate Division, and Joel B. Saxe, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William F. Delhey, *561 Prosecuting Attorney, and Leonard J. Kowalski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
In these cases, consolidated on appeal, the defendants were convicted of felonies and sentenced to serve terms in prison. In the leading McFarlin case (People v McFarlin, 41 Mich App 116 [1972]) a panel of the Court of Appeals, differing with an earlier panel's decision in People v Coleman, 19 Mich App 250 (1969), held that a judge may not consider an adult offender's juvenile offense record as a factor in imposing sentence upon him, and remanded McFarlin for resentencing. The other consolidated cases concern the same issue.
"A disposition of any child under this chapter, or any evidence given in such case, shall not in any civil, criminal or any other cause or proceeding whatever in any court, be lawful or proper evidence against such child for any purpose whatever, except in subsequent cases against the same child under this chapter." MCLA 712 A. 23; MSA 27.3178(598.23).
*562 This language, enacted in 1905 as part of Michigan's first juvenile court act,[1] has been carried forward to the present without substantive change.[2]
Separate courts for juveniles were established in a number of states at the turn of the century. Illinois, in 1899, was the first to act.[3] Other states followed before Michigan acted, but only two, California and Colorado,[4] restricted the use of juvenile records in other proceedings. Michigan adopted the language of the Colorado act.[5]
*563 Although provisions restricting the use of a juvenile record were soon adopted in well over half the states, we have neither been directed to, nor have we been able to find, any contemporaneous discussion or interpretation of these provisions. Thus, now over 65 years after these provisions were first enacted, after everyone conversant with the "legislative intent" is gone, we seek to determine the proper construction of this restriction.
This Court has said that where "language is of doubtful meaning, a reasonable construction must be given, looking to the purpose subserved thereby. Its occasion and necessity are matters of judicial concern, and its purpose should be effected if possible. Its spirit and purpose should prevail over its strict letter. Injustice in its application should be prevented, and absurd consequences avoided." (Citations omitted.) Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531 (1948).
Few words have a "content so intrinsic" that their meaning does not become doubtful in the context of a particular question. Wyandotte Savings Bank v State Banking Commissioner, 347 Mich 33, 40 (1956). G.A. Endlich, in his treatise on statutory construction, said:
"Language is rarely so free from ambiguity as to be incapable of being used in more than one sense; and to adhere rigidly to its literal and primary meaning in all cases would be to miss its real meaning in many. If a literal meaning had been given to the laws which forbade a layman to lay hands on a priest, and punished all who drew blood in the street, the layman who wounded a priest with a weapon would not have falled within the prohibition, and the surgeon who bled a person in the street to save his life, would have been *564 liable to punishment. On a literal construction of his promise, Mahomed II.'s sawing the Venetian governor's body in two, was no breach of his engagement to spare his head; nor Tamerlane's burying alive a garrison, a violation of his pledge to shed no blood. On a literal construction, Paches, after inducing the defender of Notium to a parley under a promise to replace him safely in the citadel, claimed to be within his engagement when he detained his foe until the place was captured, and put him to death after having conducted him back to it; and the Earl of Argyll fulfilled in the same spirit his promise to the laird of Glenstane, that if he would surrender he would see him safe to England; for he hanged him only after having taken him across the Tweed to the English bank." Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes (Linn & Company ed 1888), § 25, pp 33-34.
We seek to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178, 182 (1922). But, as Karl Llewellyn observed, only infrequently "a legislative intent with some concrete reality can be uncovered in circumstance or legislative history. For the rest, the court's work is not to find, any more than it is with case law. It is to do, responsibly, fittingly, intelligently, with and within the given frame." (Emphasis by author.) Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition, Deciding Appeals, p 382. Much the same point was made in language quoted approvingly in Wyandotte Savings Bank v State Banking Commissioner, supra, pp 40-41: "`"the intention is to be taken or presumed, according to what is consonant to reason and good *565 discretion."'" 1 Kent's Commentaries (14th ed), p 462.
The teleological approach has great appeal to judges who recognize that law should make sense to the people who must live with it. In Magnuson v Kent County Board of Canvassers, 370 Mich 649, 657 (1963), this Court said: "We may in the construction of an ambiguous statute look to the result of the construction to aid us in determining legislative intent."
In many states the restriction, worded like ours, states that an offender's juvenile record shall not be admissible or usable against him in subsequent proceedings in other courts "as evidence". Michigan, along with a few other states, adds emphatically, "for any purpose whatever". In other states the limiting words "as evidence" are not used. In still others, the legislatures have added that juvenile court adjudication shall not be deemed to be a conviction. There are still other variations.[6]
*566 In that year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania statute ("[t]he disposition of a child or any evidence given in a juvenile court shall not be admissible as evidence against the child in any case or proceeding in any other court") does not bar a sentencing judge from considering an adult defendant's juvenile record. Commonwealth v Myers, 393 Pa 224; 144 A2d 367 (1958). In subsequent cases, the Delaware, Wisconsin, Alaska, Arizona and Oregon Supreme Courts and the New Jersey Superior Court agreed with this construction.[7]
"A judge, of all persons, should be most cognizant of the existence and meaning of AS 47.10.080(g), and of the fact that under that statute a juvenile offender may not be considered a criminal even though he has suffered a criminal conviction. But the judge cannot simply ignore that phase of appellant's life before he reached 18 years of age as though it did not exist *567 particularly when appellant was only 21 years old when sentenced. The judge is not required to operate in a vacuum. In sentencing a 21 year old person, the life, characteristics, and background behavior of that person prior to reaching the age of 18 years might be highly relevant. It should be noted that the judge cannot consider a juvenile offense as a criminal conviction for the purpose of prescribing a mandatory sentence. But that was not done in this case. The judge's consideration of factors relating to appellant's life, characteristics, background and behavior prior to reaching the age of 18 years does not mean that he considered appellant a criminal or that he was using the juvenile offenses as criminal convictions in determining the sentence to impose." Berfield v State, 458 P2d 1008, 1011-1012 (Alas, 1969).
An Illinois intermediate appellate court,[8] on the other hand, agreed with the construction adopted by our Court of Appeals in McFarlin.
These statutory restrictions on the use of a juvenile record were adopted at a time when the emphasis in sentencing was more on the crime *568 than on the offender.[9] Indeterminate sentencing, recently authorized by a vote of the people,[10] was new in Michigan.
Michigan's 1903 indeterminate sentence act did not advert to the history of the offender.[11] The 1905 indeterminate sentence act did provide that before or at the time of passing sentence the judge should ascertain "the causes of the criminal character or conduct of such convict, which facts, and such other facts as shall appear to be pertinent in the case, he shall cause to be entered upon the minutes of the court."[12] But it is unclear whether this duty was imposed on the sentencing judge to focus his attention on the offender (as well as the crime) or to serve some other purpose, such as providing guidance for the Governor and the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons in exercising the parole power.
Another 1903 act authorized judges to place convicted persons on probation under the supervision of probation officers. The act also required a probation officer, if directed by the court, to "inquire into the nature of any criminal case" and permitted him to recommend probation.[13] The 1903 act did not in terms oblige a probation officer to *569 prepare a written report for the judge. It was not until 1913 that the officer was expressly required to inquire beyond the "nature of the criminal case" into the background of the offender and to report to the judge in writing.[14]
The 1913 probation act provided that, when so directed by the court, the probation officer "shall inquire into the antecedents, character and circumstances of any person or persons accused within the jurisdiction of such court, and shall report thereon in writing to such court or magistrate".[15] Presentence investigation and report did not become mandatory for felony cases until 1931 (1931 PA 308) and is still optional in sentencing for misdemeanors. The presently-governing language, adopted in 1931, provides:
In 1905 judges made their own presentence inquiries. *570 The earlier-mentioned 1905 indeterminate sentence act required the judge to examine the offender under oath concerning "the causes of the criminal character or conduct". The judge was, indeed, also to consider other evidence, but it is apparent that the first obligation was to examine the offender. The inherent limitations of time and energy of a judge working with limited staff meant that his inquiry of the offender was, in many cases, his primary, and perhaps his only, source of information. This inquiry would naturally bring to the judge's attention instances of earlier misconduct and offenses, and any resulting judicial proceedings, juvenile as well as adult. The restriction on the use of the juvenile court record of "dispositions" would not have cut off inquiry of the offender himself concerning misconduct and offenses committed during the years he would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
The Court of Appeals in McFarlin stressed the difference between juvenile and adult proceedings *571 and concluded that it would be unsound to allow a sentencing judge to rely on a record "compiled by a procedure inapposite to our criminal justice system." People v McFarlin, supra, p 126. This argument from policy cuts both ways.
Moreover, this argument ignores the real protections, including the right to a jury trial and a qualified right to counsel, accorded juvenile defendants in Michigan since juvenile courts were first established in this state.[16] It also ignores the *572 use to which the juvenile history will be put. While a jury might well be misled if a juvenile record could be used to impeach credibility and an adult defendant surely would be penalized if his juvenile record were used to invoke a recidivist statute, bringing an adult defendant's juvenile record to the judge's attention at the time of sentencing frequently will but supplement a derogatory report of which the judge would otherwise become aware.
Those who would prohibit consideration of an offender's juvenile record at sentencing recognize that the restriction does not preclude a judge from learning of the offender's juvenile background. As *573 stated by the author of the McFarlin opinion, in a subsequent opinion:
"The statutory restraint of MCLA 712 A. 23; MSA 27.3178 (598.23) on the use of a juvenile record does not preclude the development and presentation of a report which indicates the conduct, character and behavior of the defendant during the period he is within the jurisdictional age of juvenile authorities. The statute barring the use of juvenile records as evidence `for any purpose whatsoever' prohibits a sentencing judge from relying on the use of a juvenile record for the result of the juvenile court adjudicative process." People v Chappell, 44 Mich App 204, 208-209 (1972).[17]
If the judge is not to be shielded from all knowledge of the offender's juvenile history, we see no sound reason why the official record of his court history alone should be kept from the judge, why the probation officer and the judge should be required to do indirectly by inquiry of the accused, his acquaintances, friends, family, victims and witnesses of his depredations, and the like what can be done directly with greater efficiency and accuracy.
In this connection it is noteworthy that, by act of the Legislature, the state department of social welfare and the probate courts are obliged to furnish the department of corrections, on request, information concerning a person having a record as a juvenile probationer.[18] Presumably this information may be used in reaching a parole release decision under the indeterminate sentencing act. It *574 would be incongruous to deny like information to the judge who sets the minimum sentence and sometimes the maximum sentence under that very same act.
If in an effort to enforce an absolute restriction on the use of juvenile records we were to bar all waivers of the restriction and prohibit any consideration by the sentencing judge of juvenile history, the best and the worst sentencing risks might be indistinguishable. A judge hesitant to take risks, uncertain whether a young adult offender is a first offender, might sentence him to prison when, with complete information, he would place him on probation or sentence him under the Holmes Act.
The modern view of sentencing is that the sentence should be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case and the offender in an effort to balance both society's need for protection and its interest in maximizing the offender's rehabilitative potential. While the resources allocated for rehabilitation may be inadequate and some persons question whether rehabilitation can be achieved in the prison setting, this view of sentencing is the present policy of the state. A judge needs complete information to set a proper individualized sentence. A defendant's juvenile court history may *575 reveal a pattern of lawbreaking and his response to previous rehabilitative efforts. This, together with information concerning underlying social or family difficulties, and a host of other facts are essential to an informed sentencing decision, especially if the offender is a young adult.
*576 This legitimate need can best be met, not by reducing the information available to the sentencing judge, but by requiring disclosure of presentence reports to defendants and affording them an opportunity to rebut or add to the information contained in the report.[19]
Today, after consideration of comments from Bench and Bar, we adopted an amendment to the court rules implementing the proposed rule set forth in People v Malkowski, 385 Mich 244, 250, n 5 (1971). The new rule provides for disclosure of the presentence report to the defendant as proposed in § 4.4 of the American Bar Association, Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures.
"Amendments to these rules shall be made by the adoption of an entire new or amended rule or sub-rule by the Supreme Court after giving reasonable notice to the Secretary of the State Bar of Michigan and to the *578 Court Administrator of the proposal and of the manner and means by which comments thereon may be made. The Secretary of the State Bar shall notify the appropriate committees or sections of the State Bar of the proposed amendments and of the manner and means by which the comments may be made. The Court Administrator shall notify the appropriate committees of the Judicial Conference of the proposed amendments and of the manner and means by which the comments may be made. Upon a finding of a need for immediate action, the Court may dispense with the notice requirements of this rule."
The comments which resulted from the 1971 publication were, in general, critical or questioning of all or parts of the proposal. It also should be noted that a Federal system survey of 689 judges of Federal Courts of Appeal, Federal district courts and Federal probation officers revealed that 91% opposed compulsory disclosure of presentence reports. After a three year study by the Judicial Conference, the United States Supreme Court approved *579 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(2), which is as follows:
*580 When courts are the objects of criticism because of the complexity of criminal proceedings, would not another complex rule providing the already convicted criminal with one more means of obstruction and delay give even more credibility to the charge that a criminal conviction is never final excepting upon dismissal or death?
Further, there is merit in the statement ending Justice T.E. BRENNAN'S concurring opinion in People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155, 221 (1973):
*581 "We recognize, as has been urged upon us, that the juvenile court history of the defendant contained in the presentence report may be misleading, incomplete or inaccurate. Yet, under present practice, the defendant might not see the presentence report or have an opportunity to rebut any derogatory information. We also recognize that, for a variety of reasons, a juvenile offender may not vigorously defend a doubtful charge."
Next, it would be a rare judge indeed who might overstep those tightly proscribed limits as to proof of "charges" even allowing for human frailty in this, as in all facets of life. Certainly, no such infirm generality as stated should be the basis for an important decision.
In the absence of (1) an accurate basis for the conclusion reached, (2) opportunities to hear all sides of the question and (3) a due consideration of *582 consequences good and bad it seems lacking in judicial restraint and wisdom to take this route to cavalierly alter present procedures.
[1] "Any child committing any of the acts herein mentioned shall be deemed a juvenile delinquent person and shall be proceeded against as such in the manner hereinafter provided. A disposition of any child under this chapter, or any evidence given in such cause, shall not in any civil, criminal, or other cause or proceeding whatever in any court, be lawful or proper evidence against such child for any purpose whatever excepting in subsequent cases against the same child under this act." 1905 PA 312, § 1.
The 1905 act, held unconstitutional in Hunt v Wayne Circuit Judges, 142 Mich 93 (1905), was reenacted in substantially the same form with the constitutional defects remedied as 1907 PA 325 and 1907 PA (1st Ex Sess) 6. The compiler's note to 1915 CL 2011 states: "Former Acts 312 of 1905, and 325 of 1907, are undoubtedly superseded by this act (1907 PA [1st Ex Sess] 6). Act 325 of 1907 was expressly repealed 1915, p 407, act 240, Eff. Aug 24, Compilers' Section 69."
[2] We attach no significance, one way or another, to the reenactment of the 1905 limitation on the use of juvenile records in subsequent codifications with only stylistic changes. See MCLA 8.3u; MSA 2.212(21).
[3] See Ill Laws 1899, p 131, approved April 21, 1899.
[4] California: "No record of, or testimony concerning any proceeding against any child under this act shall be admissible as evidence against such child in any other court or proceeding, except in proceedings under this act." Cal Public Acts 1903, ch XLIII, § 12, Feb 26, 1903.
[5] See fns 1 and 4.
[6] See Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed), § 196, p 673, fn 5.
In two states, South Carolina and Oregon, the statute, specifically addressing the question whether a sentencing judge should have access to the juvenile court history of the defendant, expressly permits it. See SC Acts 1936, May 4, 1936, No 809, § 36; Or Rev Stat (vol 3) 419.567(3)(a). It appears that the Oregon statute may have been passed during the pendency of the appeal in Mitchell v Gladden, 229 Or 192; 366 P2d 907 (1961). See fn 7, infra.
[7] Massey v State, 256 A2d 271 (Del, 1969). The Delaware statute has the same language found in Michigan's provision.
Deja v State, 43 Wis 2d 488; 168 NW2d 856 (1969). The Wisconsin statute reads "admissible as evidence."
Berfield v State, 458 P2d 1008 (Alas, 1969). Alaska has an "admissible as evidence" statute.
Arizona v Fierro, 101 Ariz 118; 416 P2d 551 (1966). Arizona has an "admissible as evidence" statute.
State v Jones, 91 NJ Super 67; 219 A2d 193 (1966). New Jersey also has an "admissible as evidence" statute.
[8] People v Crable, 80 Ill App 2d 243; 255 NE2d 76 (1967). The Illinois statute contains the same language found in Michigan's provision. The Illinois Court did not explain how it reached its conclusion. It simply said that the judge erred in taking into consideration the defendant's stay "at St. Charles", citing and quoting the statute.
[9] Cf. Williams v New York, 337 US 241; 247; 69 S Ct 1079; 93 L Ed 1337 (1949).
[10] See constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to provide by law for indeterminate sentences adopted at the November election of 1902, added as § 47 to art 4 of the 1908 Constitution. See 1903 PA, p 452.
[11] See 1903 PA 136.
[12] 1905 PA 184, § 1. Both the requirement that the judge make such inquiry of a convicted person and the restriction on the use of juvenile records were enacted at the very same Legislature. The requirement that the judge make such inquiry (1905 PA 184, § 1) was approved by the Governor on June 7, 1905, and the restriction on the use of juvenile record (1905 PA 312, § 1) was approved on June 17, 1905.
[13] 1903 PA 91.
[14] 1905 PA 32; 1909 PA 124; 1913 PA 105; 1915 CL 2029, et seq.
[15] 1913 PA 105, § 14; 1915 CL 2042.
[16] In McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528; 91 S Ct 1976; 29 L Ed 2d 647 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not require a jury trial in juvenile proceedings. However, § 2 of the 1905 and of both 1907 juvenile court acts (see fn 1) provided that any interested person may demand a jury of 6 and § 3 of the 1907 Acts provided that the court may in any such case appoint counsel to appear and defend on behalf of any such child. In 1939, it was provided that "in case such child or his or her parents desire counsel and are unable to procure same, the court may appoint counsel to conduct the defense." 1939 PA 288, ch xii, § 12. In 1944, the words "in the event" were substituted for the words "in case" and the last clause was changed to read, "the court in its discretion may appoint counsel to represent the child." 1944 PA (1st Ex Sess) 54. See MCLA 712 A. 17; MSA 27.3178(598.17). See, also, Juvenile Court Rules of 1969 which spell out procedural safeguards in proceedings against juveniles.
True, until In re Gault, 387 US 1; 87 S Ct 1428; 18 L Ed 2d 527 (1967), a juvenile court was not obliged to provide counsel. The statute provided, as above set forth, that, if the child or his parents desire but are unable to procure counsel, the court "in its discretion may appoint counsel". Some juvenile defendants may, indeed, have been unaware of the right to request counsel. Others may have been aware of the right but failed to exercise it. In other cases, the court may have refused a request for counsel. These circumstances may affect the usability or weight to be given to specific dispositions in adult sentencing but are not a good reason for excluding use of juvenile records where such circumstances are not present.
[17] Similarly, see People v Meadows, 46 Mich App 741 (1973): "The statute does not preclude a sentencing judge from enhancing the punishment of a defendant based on the conduct, behavior and antecedents of such a person as a minor so long as the information is developed without recourse to dispositions evidenced by the juvenile record."
[18] See MCLA 791.228; MSA 28.2298.
[19] The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice has recommended full disclosure of presentence reports. See The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, p 144 (1967).