Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pros Response to Application for Leave SC_23852

Pros Response to Application for Leave SC_23852

Ratings: (0)|Views: 50|Likes:
Published by Mark Jackson
Prosecutor's Brief in the Case of People v. Harris for felony nonsupport pursuant to People v Adams, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding that inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony non-support under MCL 750.165.
Prosecutor's Brief in the Case of People v. Harris for felony nonsupport pursuant to People v Adams, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding that inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony non-support under MCL 750.165.

More info:

Published by: Mark Jackson on Jan 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/07/2011

pdf

text

original

 
STATE
OF
MICHIGAN
[N
THE SUPREME COURTTHE PEOPLE
OF
THESTATE
OF
MICHIGAN,
SC
No.
141513
Plaintiff-Appellee,
COANo.
297182
vs.
Lower Court
File
No.
08-56761-FHSCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
Muskegon
County CircuitCourtDefendant-Appellant.
 / 
MUSKEGON
COUNTYPROSECUTOR
STATE
APPELLATE DEFENDEROFFICE
Attorneyfor
Plaintiff 
Attorney
forDefendant
By:
James
L.
Corbett
(P59312))
By:
Roif 
E.
Berg
(P2675
8)
Hall
o
Justice,
Fifth Floor
101
North
Washington,
l4t1~
Floor
990
TerraceStreet
Lansing,
MI 48913
Muskegon,
MI
49442(517)334-6069
(231)
724-6435
 / 
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES
RESPONSE
TO
DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS
APPLICATION
FOR
LEAVE
TOAPPEAL
MUSKEGON
COUNTY
PROSECUTOR
Attorney for
Plaintiff-Appellee
\
 \~
13
~
By:
JAM ES
L.
C0RBETr
(P593
12)
Assistant ProsecutingAttorney
~
BUSINESS ADDRESS
&
TELEPHONE.
Hall
o
Justice,
Fifth
Floor
990
Terrace Street
Muskegon,
MI
49442
(231)
724-6435
 
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
No.TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
iINDEX
OF
AUTHORITIES
iii
COUNTERSTATEMENT
OF
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED
vi
COUNTERSTATEMENT
OF
JURISDICTION
viii
COUNTERSTATEMENT
OF
THE
FACTS
1
LAWAND
ARGUMENT
2
I.
THE
PROVISIONS
OF
THE
INTERTWINEDCIVIL
AND
CRIMINAL STATUTES
IN
THISCASEARE
CONSISTENT
WITH
A
CONCLUSION
THATTHE
LEGISLATURE
INTENDED
TO
CREATE
A
STRICTLIABILITY OFFENSE
2
II.
THE
PROHIBITION
OF
AN
INABILITY-TO-PAYDEFENSE
DOES
NOT
VIOLATE
THE
MICHIGAN
AND
FEDERAL
DUE
PROCESS CLAUSES
AS
INTERPRETED
BY
THE
MICHIGAN SUPREMECOURT
IN
CITY 
OF PORT 
 HURON 
VJENKINSON 
S
1.
THE
CIVIL
PROCEEDING FOR
DETERMINATION
OF
SUPPORT
LEVELS
DOES
NOT
MAKE THESTATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
8
2.
THE
SO-CALLED
ELIMINATION
OF
A
VOLUN
-
TARYACTUSREUSREOUIREMENT
DOES
NOTRENDER THE
STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
11
III.
DEFENDANT
WAS
NEITHER
DENIED
THE
BENEFIT
OF
HIS
COBBS
AGREEMENT
NOR
INCARCERATEDBASED
UPON
AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CONSIDER
-
ATION
OFHIS
INIMGENCY
AND,
THEREFORE,
THETRIAL
COURT
DID
NOT
ERRONEOUSLY
DENY HIS
MOTION
TO
WITHDRAW
HIS
PLEA
14
 
TABLE OF
CONTENTS continued
IV.
DEFENDANT
WAIVED
HIS
CLAIM THAT
THE
TRIALCOURT
ERRONEOUSLY
ADOPTED
THE
CHILD-SUPPORT
ARRIEARAGE IN
FAMILY COURT
AS
THE
RESTITUTION
AWARD DESPITE
ITSFAILURE TO
FIND THAT
THIS
AMOUNT
WAS
ALL
THE
RESULT
OF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
23
CONCLUSION
28
11

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->