The Court of Appeals is publishing .People v Richard Carl Adams, a case out of Saginaw, which had to determine, in an issue of first impression, whether felony nonsupport, as set forth in MCL 750.165, as amended in 1999, was a strict-liability offense.
A strict liability crime is one for which the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant performed the act, regardless of intent or knowledge. People v Lardie, 452 Mich 231, 240-241; 551 NW2d 656 (1996). Although strict liability offenses are disfavored, the Legislature has firmly rooted authority to create such offenses. People v Nasir, 255 Mich App 38, 40; 662 NW2d 29 (2003).
The panel held that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff’s (prosecutor’s) motion in limine to exclude evidence of defendant’s inability to pay. The panel held that the current version of the statute clearly does not include a fault element. Instead, it states merely that the individual “does not pay the support.” Therefore, allowing the defendant to offer an explanation and avoid conviction would negate the post-conviction procedures under subpart 3 of the statute.
The panel noted that once a defendant is convicted, subsection (3) of § 165 authorizes the court to suspend the sentence if the defendant files a bond conditioned on compliance. If the defendant fails to comply with the bond, it then gives the defendant additional opportunities to show cause why he has still not complied with the support order or other condition on the bond. Given these post-conviction chances for redemption before punishment is imposed, the Legislature prudently decided that no additional culpable mental intent need to be shown before a conviction could be entered