Case Name: PEOPLE v. PUMMER
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-12-31
Citations: 399 Mich. 326
Docket Number: Docket No. 57200
Parties: PEOPLE v PUMMER
Judges: Coleman, Fitzgerald, Lindemer, and Ryan, JJ., concurred with Williams, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 399
Pages: 326–349

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v PUMMER
Docket No. 57200.
Argued April 5, 1976
(Calendar No. 4).
Decided December 31, 1976.
Robert G. Pummer was convicted by a jury in Jackson Circuit Court, Gordon W. Britten, J., of first-degree murder. The trial court later granted a new trial on the ground that the instructions to the jury were erroneous. The Court of Appeals, Quinn, P. J., and McGregor and Bronson, JJ., dismissed the people’s appeal from that order on the ground that ho statute authorized the interlocutory appeal by the people (Docket No. 19275), The people appeal. Held:
Appeals by the prosecutor, like those of all other litigants, áre governed by the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 and court tules, Final judgments are appealable as of right; interlocutory orders are appealable by leave granted. An order granting a new trial is a non-final, interlocutory order; therefore, the prosecutor proceeded correctly in applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Reversed and remanded to the Cotirt of Appeals for a decision on the substantive issues.
Chief Justice, Kavanagh dissented on the ground that an order granting a motion for a new trial is not included in the statute allowing limited appeals by the people to the Court of Appeals in criminal cases. The Court of Appeals has the power to issue an order of Superintending control only in respect Of a particular error in an actual case. The nature and scope of the former writs of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition define the boundaries of the Court of Appeals order of superintending Control. An extraordinary writ provides an efficient means of resolving legal and jurisdictional questions, without the need of ancillary factual determinations more appropriately resolved by appeal. The discretionary determination of the trial court to grant a new trial based upon erroneous instructions to the jury does not ñt within the circumstances allowing a writ Of cértiorari and, accordingly, an order of superintending control is not available from the Court of Appeals.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12-15] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 267, 268.
Constitutionality of statute permitting appeal by state in criminal cáSeS. 157 ALR 1065.
[2] 47 Am Jur 2d, Judgments §§ 1053, 1054,
[8-5, 12, 13] 56 Am Jur 2d, Motions, Rules, and Orders § 3.
[6 — 14] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 111 et seq.
Superintending control over inferior tribunals. 112 ALR 1351.
[15] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 271 et seq.
Justice Levin concurred with Chief Justice Kavanagh that the order granting a motion for a new trial is not appealable, but did not join in declaring that such an order may not be reviewed by the Court of Appeals in the exercise of its power of superintending control because the issue is not before the Supreme Court.
Justice Levin also wrote a separate dissent to the holding that appeals by the prosecutor are governed by the Revised Judicature Act and the General Court Rules of 1963. The cases relied on for that holding were appeals from final orders and are not pre'cedentially binding on the question whether the prosecutor may appeal an interlocutory order. The Judicature Act of 1915 and the Revised Judicature Act could be construed literally as covering appeals by the prosecutor but such a construction is inconsistent with the history of the statutes and the pattern in this and other jurisdictions of a separate specific statutory provision for prosecutor appeals. By the decision in this case the specific provision for prosecutor appeals is read off the statute books. The Court of Appeals has been in operation for 12 years, but this is the first holding that in adopting in 1964 the amendments to the General Court Rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals the Supreme Court determined to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and to allow prosecutors to appeal an order granting a new trial. Even if the Revised Judicature Act gives the Supreme Court the authority to enlarge by rule the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to consider prosecutor appeals, the Supreme Court has not, until now, exercised that authority, and now expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals without analysis.
61 Mich App 552; 233 NW2d 79 (1975) reversed.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Court of Appeals.
Appeals from a criminal case to the Court Of Appeals by the people like those of all other litigants, are governed by the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 and court rules: final judgments are appealable as of right, interlocutory orders are appealable by leave granted (MCL 600.308; MSA 27A.308; GCR 1963, 806).
2. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Final Judgment.
A final judgment is not reached in a criminal case, following conviction, until the court pronounces a sentence, which leaves nothing to be done but enforcement (MCL 600.308; MSA 27A.308; GCR 1963, 806.1).
3. Appeal and Error — Motions—Final Orders.
Final orders are adjudications upon motions or other applications, not involving a hearing upon pleadings and proofs, but upon other issues interlocutory or collateral, whereby some supposed right of a party is definitely cut off, or some liability fixed upon him; if it closes the matter and precludes any further hearing or investigation it is final (MCL 600.308; MSA 27A.308; GCR 1963, 806.1).
4. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — New Trial.
An order granting a new trial is a non-final, interlocutory order; therefore, the people must apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from such an order in a criminal case (MCL 600.308; MSA 27A.308; GCR 1963, 806.2).
Dissenting Opinion
Kavanagh, C. J.
5. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — New Trial.
An order granting a new trial is not included within the statute allowing limited appeals by the people to the Court of Appeals in criminal cases (MCL 770.12; MSA 28.1109).
6. Courts — Superintending Control — Jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has general superintending control over all the state courts, but the Court of Appeals has power to issue an order of superintending control only in respect of a particular error in an actual case (Const 1963, art 6, § 4; GCR 1963, 711).
7. Courts — Court of Appeals — Jurisdiction—Extraordinary Writs —Superintending Control.
The nature and scope of the former writs of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition deñne the boundaries of the Court of Appeals order of superintending control (GCR 1963, 711).
8. Courts — Extraordinary Writs — Remedies.
The peremptory common-law writs are among the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal; as extraordinary remedies they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.
9. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Extraordinary Writs.
An appellate court cannot rightly exercise its discretion to issue a writ whose only effect would be to avoid statutory conditions of appellate review and thwart the Legislature’s policy against piecemeal appeals in criminal cases.
10. Appeal and Error — Extraordinary Writs — Criminal Law.
The state may not be permitted to accomplish by certiorari what it cannot do by appeal in a criminal case; the right of the state to prosecute error in a criminal case exists only when it is conferred by statute.
11. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Superintending Control— New Trial.
The determination by a trial court that a defendant in a criminal case was entitled to a new trial because the instructions to the jury were erroneous does not St within the circumstances allowing grant of certiorari and, accordingly, an order of superintending control is not available to the prosecution from the Court of Appeals (GCR1963, 711).
Dissenting Opinion
Levin, J.
See headnote 5.
12. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Prosecutor Appeals — Construction of Statutes.
A literal reading of the amendments to the Revised Judicature Act establishing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and of the rules adopted by the Supreme Court following establishment of the Court of Appeals permits the construction that they govern an appeal by a prosecutor from an interlocutory order but that construction is not consonant with the history of the provisions or the statutory pattern of providing separately for prosecutor appeals; the Judicature Act of 1915 could have been literally construed to allow appeals by prosecutors, but such appeals were separately treated in a speciñc statute enacted and amended later and still in effect (MCL 770.12; MSA 28.1109).
13. Courts — Jurisdiction—Appeal and Error.
The Revised Judicature Act establishes the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, providing for appeals of right from ñnal judgments, and authorizing the Supreme Court to determine by court rule the other judgments or interlocutory orders within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (MCL 600.308, 600.309; MSA 27A.308, 27A.309).
14. Courts — Jurisdiction—Appeal and Error — Court Rules.
The basic right of appeal is to be found in the statutes and common law, and the general court rules only relate to the methods and procedures for appeal, except as explicitly set out in the rules (GCR1963, 801.1).
15. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Prosecutor Appeals — New Trial.
The Legislature has, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, deñned the scope of the appellate rights of prosecutors, which does not allow prosecutors to appeal an order granting a new trial; under the Constitution, it is the prerogative of the Legislature to provide the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (Const 1963, art 6, §10; MCL 770.12; MSA 28.1109).
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Bruce A. Barton, Prosecuting Attorney, and James M. Justin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender Office (by John B. Phelps) for defendant.
Amicus Curiae: Edward G. Durance, Midland County Prosecuting Attorney, for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

Opinion:
Williams, J.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, but before he was sentenced, the trial judge granted his motion for new trial. The prosecutor sought leave to appeal the order granting new trial and made specific reference to our opinion in People v Blachura, 390 Mich 326; 212 NW2d 182 (1973), which affirmed the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to grant leave to appeal to the prosecutor from an order granting a new trial.
After the Court of Appeals granted the prosecutor leave to appeal, the parties briefed issues relating to the propriety of the trial judge's instructions to the jury. After formal submission and oral argument, the Court of Appeals concluded that leave was improvidently granted and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeals relied upon People v Martin, 59 Mich App 471; 229 NW2d 809 (1975), resurrecting MCLA 770.12; MSA 28.1109, and found "[n]o provision is included in the statute authorizing appeals by the people from an order granting a new trial". 61 Mich App 552, 553; 233 NW2d 79 (1975).
Shortly thereafter we held that the prosecutor could appeal as of right an order of the circuit judge quashing an information, since it "was a final pretrial decision of the circuit court". Jackson County Prosecutor v Court of Appeals, 394 Mich 527, 528; 232 NW2d 172 (1975). In so doing, we expressly overruled Martin, supra. On the same day, we entered an order on the prosecutor's application in this case, granting leave to consider whether the prosecutor could appeal from an order granting a new trial "as of right or by leave", 394 Mich 836 (1975).
In light of Blachura and Jackson County Prosecutor, supra, there should remain little question that appeals by the prosecutor, like those of all other litigants, are governed by MCLA 600.308; MSA 27A.308, and rules formulated by our Court. Final judgments are appealable as of right, GCR 1963, 806.1; interlocutory orders are appealable by leave, GCR 1963, 806.2.
In People v Pickett, 391 Mich 305, 312; 215 NW2d 695 (1974), we accepted our earlier-stated standard that:
"An ultimate or final judgment is not reached in a criminal case, following conviction, until the court pronounces a sentence, which leaves nothing to be done but enforcement." People v Fisher; 237 Mich 504, 506; 212 NW 70 (1927).
Even earlier, Chief Justice Campbell stated:
"But what are known as final orders are adjudications upon motions or other applications, not involving a hearing upon pleadings and proofs, but upon other issues interlocutory or collateral, whereby some supposed right of a party is definitely cut off, or some liability fixed upon him. Usually, if not always, an order made on such a side hearing is only final if made in a certain way; whereas, if the decision had been otherwise it would have been interlocutory; while an absolute decree made in favor of either party is final. If the decision of a motion opens a case it is not generally final, unless it cuts off some acquired right under a decree. If it closes the matter and precludes any further hearing or investigation it is final." Kingsbury v Kingsbury, 20 Mich 212, 215 (1870).
Clearly, an order granting a new trial is a non-final, interlocutory order. Therefore, under Black ura, the prosecutor proceeded correctly in applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause for a decision on the substantive issues raised by the prosecutor.
In accordance with GCR 1963, 866, the order of this Court pursuant to the decision herein shall be entered and issued immediately upon the filing of this opinion.
Coleman, Fitzgerald, Lindemer, and Ryan, JJ., concurred with Williams, J.
Kavanagh, C. J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree in February, 1973. Prior to sentencing, defendant made a motion for a new trial, which motion was granted on November 5, 1973, the trial judge concluding that "the instructions were of such a nature as to generally confuse the jury and to unduly emphasize murder in relation to the discussion of the other possible verdicts there instructed, as well as to de-emphasize if not make impossible, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity
"[I]t appears manifest injustice to the rights of the defendant may well have resulted and this court grants a new trial to the defendant."
A new trial date of March 11, 1974 was set. The prosecution filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and a motion to stay proceedings, relying on People v Blachura, 390 Mich 326; 212 NW2d 182 (1973), and GCR 1963, 806.2. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and application for leave February 4, 1974.
The case was argued January 10, 1975, and the Court of Appeals requested supplemental briefs on the question of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Both sides filed briefs on this question.
In a per curiam opinion dated May 30, 1975, the Court of Appeals held that leave to appeal had been improvidently granted, relying on People v Martin, 59 Mich App 471; 229 NW2d 809 (1975). 61 Mich App 552; 233 NW2d 79 (1975).
On August 19, 1975, this Court granted the prosecution's motion to stay proceedings and granted leave to appeal "limited to the questions of the appealability to the Court of Appeals, as of right or by leave, of a grant of a motion for a new trial in a criminal cáse, and whether such a grant is reviewable by superintending control". 394 Mich 836 (1975).
Arguments were presented on those questions in April, 1976.
We affirm.
I
We begin by stating that this case is not controlled by People v Blachura, supra. In Blachura, defendant was indicted on six counts of perjury. The jury trial ended with defendant being conyicted on five of the six counts. Defendant moved for a new trial, and a new trial was granted on two counts, with the remaining three being dismissed with prejudice.
The prosecutor was granted leave to the Court of Appeals. Defendant was granted leave to this Court to consider " 'only the narrow issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction' in this matter". 390 Mich pp 331, 332.
All seven justices agreed that the answer to the question presented was in the affirmative, i.e., the Court of Appeals "had jurisdiction in this matter".
The two opinions written in Blachura disagree as to various aspects concerning the reasons for jurisdiction, and the limits thereto, but none of that discussion was necessary to the decision of the "narrow issue" presented.
MCLA 770.12; MSA 28.1109 provides in pertinent part:
"A writ of error may be taken by and on behalf of the people in the following instances, to wit:
"(a) From a decision or judgment quashing or setting aside any indictment or information, or any count thereof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which such indictment or information is founded;
"(b) From a decision arresting a judgment of conviction or directing a judgment of acquittal for insufficiency of the indictment, where such decision is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which such indictment or information is founded;
"(c) From the decision or judgment sustaining a spe cial plea in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy, or from any other order of the court relative to admission of evidence or proceedings had or made at any time before the defendant is put in jeopardy."
That is the extent of the prosecution's right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Because an order granting a motion for a new trial is not included within MCLA 770.12; MSA 28.1109, appeal will not lie.
The prosecution argues that Const 1963, art 6, §10, and MCLA 600.308; MSA 27A.308 (RJA § 308), and GCR 1963, 806.2(2) supersede the previously cited statutory limitations on prosecutorial appeals. We disagree.
Const 1963, art 6, § 10 provides that "The jurisdiction of the court of appeals shall be provided by law and the practice and procedure therein shall be prescribed by rules of the supreme court."
Pursuant to this constitutional provision, MCLA 600.308; MSA 27A.308 (RJA §308) was enacted, providing:
"The court of appeals has jurisdiction on appeals from:
"(1) All final judgments from the circuit courts
"(2) Such other judgments or interlocutory orders as the supreme court may by rule determine."
GCR 1963, 806 provides:
".1 Appeal as of Right. In all criminal and civil matters, an aggrieved party shall have a right to appeal from all final judgments or final orders from the circuit courts .
".2 Appeal by Leave. The court of appeals may grant leave to appeal from:
"(2) Any judgment, order, act or failure to act by the circuit courts, which is not a final judgment appealable as of right."
No contention is made that the granting of defendant's motion for a new trial is a final judgment or final order giving the prosecution a right to appeal. See Jackson County Prosecutor v Court of Appeals, 394 Mich 527; 232 NW2d 172 (1975); People v Pickett, 391 Mich 305, 313; 215 NW2d 695 (1974).
Neither GCR 1963, 806.2(2), nor RJA § 308 and 309 were intended to "thoughtlessly eliminate the traditional distinction between prosecutor and defendant appeals". People v Blachura, supra, p 340 (Levin, J., concurring).
The ABA Standards Relating to Criminal Appeals, § 1.4 (Approved Draft, 1970), do not provide for prosecution appeal from a trial judge's granting of a new trial.
"The trial court has likely acted upon a claim of error in the proceedings which the defense could have raised on appeal, had the trial judge denied the motion. In a sense, the prosecution has lost the chance to seek a ruling on the question from the higher tribunal unless it now has the right to take the matter up to the appellate court. On the other hand, the trial court possibly could have ruled in favor of the defense contentions during trial rather than after trial. If instructions to the jury or other trial questions were decided initially in favor of the defendant, only a handful of states would permit prosecution appeal from a verdict favorable to the defense. It is not clear, therefore, that broad provisions for appeals from post-trial orders are necessary or sound." Id, p 39.
Because there is no provision in MCLA 770.12; MSA 28.1109 allowing the prosecution to appeal the grant of a new trial by the trial court, we hold that the order is not appealable to the Court of Appeals.
II
Having held that the grant of a new trial is not appealable to the Court of Appeals, we turn to the consideration of whether the prosecution can seek an order of superintending control from the Court of Appeals to challenge the trial court's grant of a motion for a new trial.
GCR 1963, 711.4 provides that the Court of Appeals, as well as this Court, and the circuit courts have "jurisdiction to issue superintending control orders to inferior courts". While this Court has general superintending control over all the state courts, Const 1963, art 6, §4, the Court of Appeals has power to issue an order of superintending control only "in respect of a particular error in an actual case ", Morcom v Recorder's Court Judges, 15 Mich App 358, 360; 166 NW2d 540 (1968). See also Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge, 386 Mich 672; 194 NW2d 693 (1972).
GCR 711.3 provides that superintending control is to be used in place of the former writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
The nature and scope of the former writs define the boundaries of the Court of Appeals order of superintending control. Accordingly, such orders are only available concerning legal questions that would formerly have been reviewable by mandamus, certiorari or prohibition. Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge, supra. Any other interpretation and expansion of the availability of superintending control would do away with the distinction between these extraordinary writs and ordinary appeals. An extraordinary writ provides an efficient means of resolving legal and jurisdictional questions, without the need of ancillary factual determinations more appropriately resolved by appeal. "The peremptory common-law writs are among the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal. 'As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.' Ex parte Fahey, 332 US 258, 260 [67 S Ct 1558; 91 L Ed 2041] (1947)." Will v United States, 389 US 90, 107; 88 S Ct 269; 19 L Ed 2d 305 (1967).
Additionally, as we stated in Part I, supra, the Legislature has carefully limited the types of cases the prosecution may appeal to the Court of Appeals. If an order of superintending control were available to review alleged errors such as presented by the instant case, the specific limitations of the statute would be effectively nullified.
"Where the appeal statutes establish the conditions of appellate review, an appellate court cannot rightly exercise its discretion to issue a writ whose only effect would be to void those conditions and thwart the [Legislature's] policy against piecemeal appeals in criminal cases." Roche v Evaporated Milk Association, 319 US 21, 30; 63 S Ct 938; 87 L Ed 1185 (1943).
"The State should not be permitted to accomplish by certiorari what it cannot do by appeal. The right of the State to prosecute error in a criminal case exists only when such right is conferred by statute.
"Where the State has no right of appeal from an order granting defendant a new trial, certiorari could not be granted as a substitute. To bring up the matter by certiorari, would be to accomplish by indirection what the statute does not expressly permit." State v Paul, 80 NM 746, 747; 461 P2d 228, 229 (1969) cert den 397 US 1044 (1970).
Accord, State v Todd, 224 NC 776; 32 SE2d 313 (1944).
In the case such as this, the only writ that arguably would formerly have been available would be certiorari. However, "The writ of certiorari is for review of errors of law and our inquiry is limited to determining 'if the inferior tribunal, upon the record made, had jurisdiction, whether or not it exceeded that jurisdiction and proceeded according to law.' " Genesee Prosecutor v Genesee Circuit Judge, supra, p 681.
The discretionary determination of the trial court to grant a new trial due to his belief that his instructions were erroneous or confusing does not fit within the circumstances allowing grant of a writ of certiorari, and, accordingly, an order of superintending control is not available from the Court of Appeals.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The cause is remanded for trial.
Levin, J., concurred in part I of the opinion of Kavanagh, C. J.