PEOPLE OF MI V JACK CHAVIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
July 20, 2001
9:15 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 218911
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-014048
JACK CHAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
September 28, 2001
Before: Gage, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of making a false report of the
commission of a felony, MCL 750.411a(1)(b), and was sentenced to a one-year probationary
term with the first thirty days to be served in jail. Defendant appeals as of right. We reverse.
On April 14, 1998, defendant called police and reported that he had been robbed and
carjacked by four males. He indicated that one assailant pointed a gun at his head, while the
other three assailants had baseball bats. The assailants allegedly took defendant's car, his wallet,
a gold ring, and a gold necklace. Defendant informed the police that he was carjacked at "South
Fort and Outer Drive," but that the carjackers dropped him off at "South Fort and Francis."
Police officers located defendant's car within an hour. The person driving defendant's car
explained that "crack cocaine was involved" and that he had been given the car by a person
matching defendant's description. After being questioned by police about the version of events
provided by the person driving defendant's car, defendant admitted that he was purchasing crack
cocaine at the time of the carjacking and that he lied about the location of the carjacking because
he did not want to tell police why he was in the area. As a result of the admissions, defendant
was charged with making a false report of a crime.
On appeal, the issue presented is whether the offense of filing a false report of the
commission of a crime proscribes the reporting of false details concerning the crime. We review
de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Heinz v Chicago Rd Investment Co, 216 Mich App
289, 295; 549 NW2d 47 (1996).
-1-
MCL 750.411a(1), which is entitled "false crimes, reports to police officers . . . ,"
provides in relevant part: "[A] person who intentionally makes a false report of the commission
of a crime . . . is guilty of a crime."
A fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the purpose and intent of the
Legislature in enacting the provision. Farrington v Total Petroleum, Inc, 442 Mich 201, 212;
501 NW2d 76 (1993). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction or
interpretation is unnecessary and, therefore, precluded. Lorencz v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich
370, 376; 483 NW2d 844 (1992). If reasonable minds can differ concerning the meaning of a
statute, however, judicial construction is appropriate. Heinz, supra at 295.
Here, the statute proscribes the intentional making of "a false report of the commission of
a crime." MCL 750.411a(1) (emphasis added). The plain language of the statute provides that
those who make police reports falsely claiming that a crime has been committed are guilty of
making a report of a false crime. See, e.g., People v Lay, 336 Mich 77; 57 NW2d 453 (1953)
(the defendant was convicted, under the predecessor of ยง 411a, of making a "fictitious report of
the commission of any crime" after falsely telling the police that he had put poison in a bottle of
home-delivered milk to catch the person who had been stealing his milk).1 To construe the
statute to encompass false information concerning the details of an actual crime would be a
significant departure from the plain language of the statute. Because the false information
reported by defendant in the present case did not pertain to whether a crime occurred, the
conviction for filing a false report of the commission of a crime cannot be sustained.2
Accordingly, we reverse defendant's conviction and sentence.
Reversed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane R. Markey
1
Our research has unveiled no Michigan cases where a defendant was convicted of the crime of
making a false report of the commission of a crime for lying about details other than whether a
crime had actually been committed. Our research of federal and foreign states' case law has not
unveiled any cases where a defendant was convicted of this type of crime for lying about details
other than whether a crime had actually been committed. See, e.g., Smith v Arkansas, 1999 WL
200671 (Ark App, 1999) (false report that husband broke into home); People v Trimble, 181 Ill
App 3d 355; 537 NE2d 363 (1989) (defendant falsely told police his car was stolen); State v
Matilla, 339 NW2d 54, 55 (Minn, 1983) (defendant falsely reported being burglarized); State v
Kachanis, 119 RI 439, 440; 379 A2d 915 (1977) (defendant falsely reported his car stolen).
2
The trial court's finding that a carjacking actually occurred is unchallenged on appeal.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
