Calculating a person’s age would seem to be a fairly simple matter: on each birthday the individual’s age advances one year. In People v Woolfolk, however, the court of appeals analyzed at some length the conflicting legal rules governing the calculation of age. Woolfolk was convicted of a first-degree murder committed on the evening of January 28, 2007, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The defendant was born on January 29, 1989. If Woolfolk was 17 at the time of the murder, he could not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Miller v Alabama. But is Woolfolk 17 or 18 years old? The Woolfolk court could not locate a previous Michigan court decision on point and thus faced an issue of first impression: what rule governs the calculation of age in Michigan?
At common law, a person reaches the next year for purposes of determining age on the day before the actual birthday. The rationale for this rule is that the person is alive on the date of birth and that day is counted in calculating the person’s age. The court in Woolfolk described the common-law rule as “[c]ontrary to common assumption or understanding,” but summarized numerous cases from other jurisdictions applying the common-law rule in various circumstances. If the common-law rule governed, the Miller holding would not apply and Woolfolk would not be resentenced.
Other jurisdictions recognize the “birthday” rule under which a person reaches a certain age on the anniversary date of his or her birth, although this was the result of a statute changing the common-law rule in some instances. The Miller decision did not decide one way or the other on the age calculation rule but other Supreme Court decisions seemed to accept the birthday rule, as do a small number of federal statutes.
After reviewing the various Michigan constitutions, statutes, court rules, and cases, the Woolfolk court concluded that the common-law rule—to the extent that it ever applied in Michigan—was abrogated long ago by the Michigan Supreme Court and that Michigan statutes should be interpreted with this in mind. The court further concluded that, if the question arose, the Michigan Supreme Court would adopt the birthday rule for calculating age and remanded the case for resentencing in light of Miller. The court encouraged the legislature and the supreme court to clarify the age calculation issue by specific legislation or a controlling decision.
As the court noted, the age calculation has an impact far beyond sentencing matters. These include voting eligibility, consumption of alcoholic beverages, the right to marry and enter into contracts, school attendance requirements, as well as other criminal offenses such as criminal sexual conduct charges that rely on precise determinations of both the defendant’s and the victim’s ages.