
    PEOPLE v SHELDON
    Docket No. 204254.
    Submitted November 10, 1998, at Detroit.
    Decided February 12, 1999, at 9:10 A.M.
    John M. Sheldon was charged with reckless driving, a misdemeanor, in the Forty-Sixth District Court. The defendant sought discovery of the prosecution. The prosecution moved to compel reciprocal discovery pursuant to MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a) and MCR 6.201, which was denied by the district court, Bryan H. Levy, X, on the basis that the statute was superseded by the court rule and the court rule was not applicable in misdemeanor cases. The prosecution appealed by leave granted to the Oakland Circuit Court, which, Gene Schnelz, X, affirmed the district court’s order. The prosecution appealed by leave granted.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    Although MCR 6.201 is not one of the court rules enumerated in MCR 6.001(B) as being applicable in misdemeanor cases, Administrative Order No. 1994-10, which provided that “discovery in criminal cases heard in the courts of this state” was to be governed by the provisions of MCR 6.201 rather than the provisions of the statute, made no distinction between misdemeanor and felony cases. Because the language of the administrative order appears to contemplate application of MCR 6.201 in misdemeanor cases and there is nothing in the court rules expressly prohibiting application of MCR 6.201 in misdemeanor cases, the district court should have allowed the prosecution reciprocal discovery pursuant to the terms of MCR 6.201.
    Reversed.
    Criminal Law — Discovery — Misdemeanors — Court Rules.
    The court rule providing for reciprocal discovery by the prosecution in criminal cases is applicable in cases involving a misdemeanor (MCR 6.201).
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, David G. Gorcyca, Prosecuting Attorney, Richard Browne, Chief, Appellate Division, and Rae Ann Ruddy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Grebbs and Talbot, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

The prosecution appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order affirming the district court’s denial of its motion for reciprocal discovery. We reverse.

Defendant was charged with reckless driving, MCL 257.626; MSA 9.2326, a misdemeanor. After providing discovery to defendant in response to defendant’s request, the prosecution served defendant with a request for reciprocal discovery pursuant to MCR 6.201 and MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a). When defendant objected, the prosecution filed a motion to compel discovery. The district court denied the prosecution’s motion, reasoning that MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a) was superseded by MCR 6.201 and that MCR 6.201 was not applicable in misdemeanor cases. The circuit court granted leave to appeal and affirmed.

On appeal to this Court, the prosecution contends that the reciprocal discovery provision of MCR 6.201 applies to misdemeanor cases. We agree. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. People v Briseno, 211 Mich App 11, 17; 535 NW2d 559 (1995).

In the criminal procedure chapter of the Michigan Court Rules, rule 6.201 addresses the topic of discovery. Section A of that rule provides for discovery by the prosecution. Nothing in the text of MCR 6.201 limits the application of the rule to felony cases. However, at the outset of the chapter on criminal procedure, MCR 6.001(B) provides that certain enumerated rules apply in misdemeanor cases, and MCR 6.201 is not among those enumerated rules. On this basis, a panel of this Court recently explained in dicta that MCR 6.201 applies only to felony cases. See People v Pruitt, 229 Mich App 82, 87; 580 NW2d 462 (1998). But see People v Valeck, 223 Mich App 48, 49-51; 566 NW2d 26 (1997) (applying the terms of MCR 6.201 to a misdemeanor case). If we were to consider only the text of the court rules, we would most likely come to the same conclusion as the Pruitt panel. This result would be supported by the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of similar things. See Bradley v Saranac Community Schools Bd of Ed, 455 Mich 285, 298; 565 NW2d 650 (1997).

We cannot reach that conclusion because, in addition to the text of the court rales, we must also consider the authoritative guidance offered by the Michigan Supreme Court in Administrative Order No. 1994-10. Shortly before the adoption of MCR 6.201, the Legislature passed MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a) allowing for discovery by the prosecution in criminal cases. The terms of MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a) made no distinction between felony and misdemeanor cases. In response to the possible conflict between MCR 6.201 and MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a), both the court rule and the statute providing for discovery by the prosecution, the Michigan Supreme Court entered Administrative Order No. 1994-10:

On May 4, 1994, the Governor signed House Bill 4227, concerning discovery by the prosecution of certain information known to the defendant in a criminal case. 1994 PA 113, MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a). On November 16, 1994, this Court promulgated MCR 6.201, which is a comprehensive treatment of the subject of discovery in criminal cases.
On order of the Court, effective January 1, 1995, discovery in criminal cases heard in the courts of this state is governed by MCR 6.201 and not by MCL 767.94a; MSA 28.1023(194a). Const 1963, art 6, § 5; MCR 1.104. [Emphasis added.]

Administrative Order No. 1994-10 makes no distinction between felony and misdemeanor cases. Instead, it states in straightforward language that MCR 6.201 governs discovery “in criminal cases heard in the courts of this state.” We read this clear language to include misdemeanor cases as well as felony cases. Because the court rules nowhere expressly state that MCR 6.201 does not apply in misdemeanor cases, or that it applies only in felony cases, there is no direct conflict between the court rules and Administrative Order No. 1994-10. Therefore, the district court, bound by the language of Administrative Order No. 1994-10, was required to allow the prosecution reciprocal discovery pursuant to the terms of MCR 6.201.

Reversed. 
      
       Defendant elected not to file a brief on appeal.
     