People V Smith Case Summary

The People v. Smith case was decided in 1991 by the Supreme Court of Michigan. The issue was that a defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, argued he should be resentenced because of the inclusion of the presentence investigation report of his previously expunged juvenile record (People, 1991). The Court of Appeals in Michigan agreed with the defendant and required that Smith be sentenced again. The Supreme Court, however, heard the case and reverse the decision stating the Smith did not need to be sentenced again on the basis of the inclusion of his juvenile record alone. Smith was originally convicted of breaking and entering, largely based upon his decision to plead guilty. This was also his fourth offence, making him a habitual offender (People, 1991). The question in this case, then, is not related to his guilt or innocence, but it related to the basis for the sentence that was levied upon him. …show more content…
Even Smith's own lawyer acknowledged that the report was accurate. The judge used these convictions as a basis for sentencing, arguing that society needed to be protected from this individual, and that the punishment levied upon him was appropriate and fair in accordance with the crime that was committed in this case.
The Supreme Court ruled that the precedent set in People v. Price should no longer be followed (People, 1991). In some special situations, expunged juvenile records should be considered in consideration of sentencing when it serves the best interest of protecting society. Over time, most courts have taken the position that the juvenile record of a defendant can be taken into consideration by a judge when considering an appropriate sentence for a now adult offence. As such, this case is groundbreaking in the way that juvenile records are considered in court proceedings (People,