People V Smith Case Summary

People v. Smith, 437 Mich 293, 470 NW2D 70, 78 (1991) addresses public policy conflicts and balance as it relates to the juvenile justice process (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The issue presented in People v. Smith (1991) by the Supreme Court of Michigan is whether the inclusion in the presentence investigative report of an expunged juvenile record, in this case of defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, requires, under MCR 5.913, presently MCR 5.925(E), that Smith be resentenced (People v. Smith, 1991). The issue involved was that Smith argued that he should be resentenced due to the inclusion of the pre-sentence investigative report of his previously expunged juvenile record.

In People v. Smith (1991), it is stated that, “The purpose of the court rule,

Price (1988) resulting in the majority concluding that Price presented a better-reasoned approach and further added that the automatic expungement of juvenile convictions “is delusive and purposeless if law enforcement agencies may continue to use supposedly expunged records against a defendant to his prejudice” (People v. Price, 1988). Subsequently following People v. Jones (1988), its approach was deemed to effectively subvert MCR 5.913 and the dissenting judge expressed the belief that Jones represented “the better-reasoned analysis (People v. Jones, 1988).

Consequently, the presentence investigation report that outlines Smith’s previous record, including twelve juvenile entries, Smith’s lawyer indicated was accurate (People v. Smith, 1991). Therefore, the judge indicated that because Smith’s record indicated seven prior felonies and three misdemeanors, the judge viewed the sentence as appropriate in order to punish Smith, protect society, and to deter others from committing such offenses (People v. Smith, 1991). Also, the judge further added that the sentence is served concurrently with another sentence Smith was then serving (People v. Smith,

McFarlin, 389 Mich 557; 208 NW2d 504 (1973), this Court held it was proper that a sentencing judge considers an adult offender’s juvenile offense record although Probate Code provided otherwise. Thus, taking into consideration that when McFarlin was decided, the court rules did not provide for the expungement of records. In 1978, JCR 13 was adopted by the Court, which, as it was amended shortly thereafter, provided for the expungement of juvenile records following the seventh year following the discharge of the child from the court’s jurisdiction (McFarlin, 1973). Notably, Smith was sentenced under 300 MCR 5.913, which was the rule in effect at that time which replaced JCP 13 (People v. Smith, 1991). Further noted is that following the adoption of this rule, the Legislature enacted § 18e of the Juveniles and Juvenile Division Chapter of the Probate Code (People v. Smith,