Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 While strict-liability offenses are generally disfavored, United States v United States Gypsum Co, 438 U.S. 422, 438; 57 L. Ed. 2d 854; 98 S. Ct. 2864 (1978); People v Lardie, 452 Mich. 231, 240; 551 N.W.2d 656 (1996), the Legislature's authority to create strict-liability offenses is firmly rooted, Id.; People v Roby, 52 Mich. 577, 579; 18 N.W. 365 (1884). As with all questions of statutory interpretation, when determining whether a statute imposes strict liability, our primary goal is to determine and effectuate the Legislature's intent. Lardie, supra at 239. 'The starting place for the search for intent is the language used in the statute.' Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc v Dep't of Public Health, 234 Mich. App. 225, 229; 593 N.W.2d 641 (1999). 

As the Court observed in Lardie, supra at 239, 'In interpreting a statute in which the Legislature has not expressly included language indicating that fault is a necessary element of a crime, this Court must focus on whether the Legislature nevertheless intended to require some fault as a predicate to finding guilt.' Courts commonly consider the following factors when making such an examination. See People v Quinn, ...

Register or login to access full content