Analysis Of The People V. Smith Case

In 1991 the Supreme Court of Michigan held a hearing of the People v Smith. The problem with this case was that Ricky Franklin Smith, the defendant, appealed to convince the court that he ought to be re-sentenced due to the consideration of the pre-sentence report of his investigation on his juvenile record that was expunged. “The question presented is whether the inclusion in the presentence investigation report of the expunged juvenile record of defendant Ricky Franklin Smith requires, under MCR 5.913, now MCR 5.925(E), that he be resentenced” (Justia US Law, 2017). In Michigan the Court of Appeals concurred with the defendant and saw a need to re-sentence Smith once more. The Supreme Court, nonetheless, heard the case and turn around the

All things considered, those records ought not have been seen by the judge in charge of convicting Mr. Smith. “Smith argued in the Court of Appeals that he was entitled to be resentenced because the presentence investigation report contained references to his juvenile criminal record which had been automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913” (Justia US Law, 2017). “Nevertheless, arrest data are often used as measurements of juvenile crime because juvenile courts have varying rules of confidentiality regarding juvenile conviction records, which makes such records difficult to examine in many jurisdictions” (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The Court of Appeals agreed with Smith mainly fixed on the People v Price, the court case from 1988. The case confirmed that a juvenile record that was expunged can not be acknowledged during a sentencing hearing. The State contended, despite the People v Jones in 1988, that if incorporated into the pre-sentencing investigation detail report that the record could be taken into account at the hearing. “Defendant claims on appeal, as in his post-sentence motion, that resentencing is required because his juvenile record was erroneously included in the presentence information report and considered by the sentencing judge” (Leagle, 2017). With these two contradicting choices, and the Court of Appeals decided that Price case was a more excellent way to

After some time, most courts have taken the stance that the juvenile record of an individual can be thought about by a judge while considering a proper punishment for a now adult offender. “When, however, a juvenile offender appears in court again as an adult, his juvenile offense record may be considered in imposing sentence” (Elrod & Ryder,