Whether the offense of prisoner in possession of a controlled substance (PPCS) imposes strict liability; MCL 800.281(4); People v Ramsdell; “Intent, knowledge, or recklessness”; MCL 8.9(3) & (9); “Plainly imposes”; Recklessness standard

Holding that “MCL 800.281(4) does not ‘plainly impose’ strict liability,” and that to establish a violation of the statute, “the prosecution must prove that a defendant acted with ‘intent, knowledge, or recklessness’ as required by MCL 8.9(3)[,]” the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court. Defendant, a prisoner, was charged with PPCS after he picked up a crumpled piece of paper (containing a controlled substance) that was dropped in his cell by another prisoner. The trial court denied his motion requesting that the jury instructions include a mens rea element for the charged offense of PPCS. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that PPCS is a strict-liability offense. The court disagreed, finding “the Ramsdell Court’s reasoning for concluding that PPCS is a strict-liability offense” to be “inconsistent with the plain language of MCL 8.9.” Contrary to “Ramsdell, the ‘mere absence’ of the culpable mental state in MCL 800.281(4) is insufficient to construe PPCS as a strict-liability offense.” The plain “language of MCL 8.9(9) supersedes the Ramsdell Court’s interpretation of MCL 800.281(4).” Rather than “amending individual statutes, MCL 8.9 was enacted to ensure that where no mens rea was specified, MCL 8.9 would apply.” The Court of Appeals “erred by holding that MCL 800.281(4) plainly imposes strict liability.” It also erred in “concluding that MCL 8.9(3) was inapplicable.” The elements “of PPCS are ‘established only if a person acts with intent, knowledge, or recklessness.’” The court concluded that “to establish a violation under MCL 800.281(4), the prosecution is required to prove—at a minimum—that a defendant acted with recklessness.”

Dissenting, Justice Zahra concluded that, “[c]onsidering MCL 8.9 and the full context of MCL 800.281 . . . the Legislature plainly imposed strict liability for PPCS. If MCL 800.281(4) is not a strict-liability offense, it is hard to imagine any offense for which the Legislature intended to plainly impose strict liability without expressly saying as much in the statute.”