Court Opinion

ID: 9689120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:20:42.182344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:45.113542
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
Appellant presents one question:
“Does the motor vehicle code require knowledge or scienter on the part of the owner or lessee of an overloaded vehicle to support the prosecution of such person under CLS 1961, § 257.724(c) as amended by PA 1964, No 222 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 9.2424)¶”
*365The Court of Appeals answered this question in the affirmative and appellant claims the Court erred because it concluded “that it is necessary to read section 716 together with sections 722 and 724 in order to arrive at the proper construction of the statute relative to the need for knowledge of the violation of the weight provisions set forth in section 722.”
These three sections of the motor vehicle code to which appellant refers are set forth in the Court of Appeals’ decision, reported in 3 Mich App 618.
In People v. Ward (1961), 364 Mich 671, a warrant was issued accusing defendant of guilt under the presently considered section 724 of the Michigan motor vehicle code. This Court granted leave to appeal from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash.
The syllabus in People v. Ward, supra, reads:
“Automobiles — Overloaded Equipment — Equally Divided Court.
“Order quashing complaint against lessee of overloaded truck that was operated upon the public highway in violation of statute is affirmed by an equally divided court (CLS 1956, § 257.724).”
The question appellant asks this Court to answer in the present appeal is similar to the question that failed to obtain a majority answer by those members of the Court who participated in the People v. Ward decision six years ago.
The reasons for the division in People v. Ward are ably set forth in two opinions by two present members of this Court.
"We conclude that the motor vehicle code does “require knowledge or scienter on the part of the owner or lessee of an overloaded vehicle to support the prosecution of such person under CLS 1961, § 257.724(c) as amended by PA 1964, No 222,” and, *366therefore, the judgment of the Ingham circuit court and of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. No costs.
Dethmers, C. J., and T. M. Kavanagh, Adams, and Brennan, JJ., concurred with Kelly, J.