Opinion ID: 839919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: adequate proof of the third element may be lacking

Text: The most basic rule of criminal procedure is that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution has proved each element of it beyond a reasonable doubt. [4] The issue in this case is whether the offense of interfering with the report of a crime requires the prosecution to prove that another person committed or attempted to commit a crime. MCL 750.483a(1)(b) provides: (1) A person shall not do any of the following:    (b) Prevent or attempt to prevent through the unlawful use of physical force another person from reporting a crime committed or attempted by another person. Under the statutory definition of this crime, the prosecution must prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction: (1) the defendant used unlawful physical force, (2) the unlawful physical force prevented or attempted to prevent another person from reporting a crime, and (3) the crime sought to be reported was committed or attempted by another person. [5] It follows, therefore, that a defendant cannot be convicted of interfering with the report of a crime unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt the third element of that crime: (a) that another person sought to report a crime and (b) that the crime had been committed or attempted by another person. [6] Here, the finder of fact, the trial judge, assumed that the statute requires only that the person seeking to report a crime perceived that a crime had been committed or attempted. Because this is an incorrect interpretation of the statute, defendant's conviction cannot stand. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that reversed defendant's conviction. The Court of Appeals was correct in remanding the case to the trial court. That court should consider whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant or another person committed or attempted to commit the crime sought to be reported. [7] The majority concludes that the prosecution need not prove that an actual crime was committed or attempted because [i]n MCL 750.483a(1)(b), what is actually being prevented or sought to be prevented is a report of a crime by another person and not `a crime committed or attempted by another person.' [8] It is accurate to state that the statute prohibits preventing or attempting to prevent another person from reporting a crime. However, the statute also requires that the crime sought to be reported was committed or attempted by another person. If any one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, there can be no conviction. Thus, if no crime has been committed or attempted by another person, the statute cannot be violated. It is that simple.