Opinion
No. 116280 (50).
February 26, 2001.
COA: 211768, Kent CC: 94-000945-FH.
By order dated October 31, 2000, ante, p. 906 the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the question of whether the Court of Appeals majority in this case had properly construed MCL 750.197c; MSA 28.394(3) (assault of an employee of a place of confinement) so as not to require the prosecutor to prove that the person charged with this offense was "lawfully imprisoned". The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals construed the statute so as to require such proof. The prosecutor has conceded in his brief on appeal that the dissent in the Court of Appeals correctly construed the statute. We conclude as well that the dissent's construction is the correct one. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND the case to the Court of Appeals to decide whether the defendant's imprisonment was lawful. The motion to add additional issues is DENIED.