Case Name: PEOPLE v. O'BRIEN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1981-04-16
Citations: 106 Mich. App. 44
Docket Number: Docket No. 52012
Parties: PEOPLE v O’BRIEN
Judges: Before: Beasley, P.J., and R. B. Burns and C. J. Hoehn, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 106
Pages: 44–50

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v O’BRIEN
Docket No. 52012.
Submitted January 15, 1981, at Lansing. —
Decided April 16,1981.
Timothy F. O’Brien was arrested in connection with his participation in the purchase of cocaine by an undercover police officer and charged in Oakland Circuit Court with delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to quash the information, alleging that the statutory provisions under which he was charged violated the title-object clause of the Michigan Constitution. A special panel of four Oakland Circuit Court judges, after hearing this motion and several similar ones, held that Article 7 of the Public Health Code was unconstitutional and granted defendant’s motion. The people appeal. Held: Reversed and remanded for trial on the basis of the decision rendered in People v Trupiano, 97 Mich App 416; 296 NW2d 49 (1980).
C. J. Hoehn, J., dissented. He would hold that the addition of Article 7, which pertains to controlled substances, to the Public Health Code is unconstitutional because the title-object clause of the Michigan Constitution is violated in that 1) the code embraces more than one object, and 2) the object of Article 7, controlled substances, is not expressed in the code’s title. Further, because the addition of Article 7 to the code is unconstitutional, the intended repeal of the former controlled substances statute is ineffective and the former statute is, therefore, still in force and effect. He would affirm the decision of the trial court.
Opinion op the Court
1. Health — Public Health Code — Criminal Law — Controlled Substances — Constitutional Law — Statutes.
Reference in the title of the Public Health Code to the protection and promotion of public health as the purpose of the code necessarily includes proscriptions and penalties on the use of controlled substances; therefore, a section of the code which provides such proscriptions and penalties does not violate the title-object clause of the Michigan Constitution (Const 1963, art 4, § 24, MCL 333.7401; MSA 14.15[7401]).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons §§ 7-9,16,17.
[2-4] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 100-110.
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 382, 383.
Dissent by C. J. Hoehn, J.
2. Statutes — Constitutional Law — Title-Object Clause.
The purpose of the title-object clause of the Michigan Constitution is to assure fair notice to legislators and to the public of a statute’s contents (Const 1963, art 4, §24).
3. Statutes — Constitutional Law — Title-Object Clause.
The term "object” as used in the constitutional provision that no law shall embrace more than one object was not meant to have unlimited breadth; an exceedingly broad "object” could include several concepts that are wholly foreign and incongruous (Const 1963, art 4, § 24).
4. Health — Public Health Code — Constitutional Law — Title-Object Clause — Statutes.
The inclusion of Article 7, Controlled Substances, in the Public Health Code violates the title-object clause of the Michigan Constitution in that (1) the law embraces more than one object and (2) the object of Article 7 is not expressed in the title (Const 1963, art 4, §24, MCL 333.7101-333.7545; MSA 14.15[7101]-14.15[7545j).
5. Statutes — Repeal — Constitutional Law.
A statute which, by speciñc, inseparable provisions, purports to repeal prior legislation and which is determined to be unconstitutional is ineffective and the repeal cannot be accomplished where a hiatus in the law would result due to the impossibility of substituting the unconstitutional provisions for the legislation intended to be repealed; in such a case, the prior legislation remains in full force and effect.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, L. Brooks Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Counsel, and Lawrence J. Bunting, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Donald A. Brown, for defendant.
Before: Beasley, P.J., and R. B. Burns and C. J. Hoehn, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was arrested in connection with his participation in the purchase of cocaine by an undercover police officer and was charged with delivery of a controlled substance. MCL 333.7401(1), (2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401X1), (2)(a)(iv), and MCL 333.7214(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7214)(a)(iv). Defendant filed a motion to quash the information, alleging that the statutory provisions under which he was charged violated the title-object clause of the Michigan Constitution. Const 1963, art 4, § 24. This motion, together with similar motions presented in six unrelated cases, was heard by a special panel of four Oakland County Circuit Court judges. The panel held that Article 7 of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7101-333.7545; MSA 14.15(7101)-14.15(7545), was unconstitutional, and it granted defendants' motions. From an appeal by the prosecution, we reverse and remand for trial. People v Trupiano, 97 Mich App 416; 296 NW2d 49 (1980).