City of Grand Rapids v. Bateman

• Decision Date: 04 October 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 6,93 Mich. 135
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS v. BATEMAN.

53 N.W. 6

93 Mich. 135

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS v. BATEMAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 4, 1892

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids; EDWIN A. BURLINGAME Judge.

Charles Bateman was convicted of indecent exposure of his person, and appeals. Affirmed.

Nathan P. Allen, for appellant.

Wm. Wisner Taylor, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

The defendant was convicted in the police court of Grand Rapids and on appeal in the superior court, of indecent exposure of his person. He appeals to this court from the conviction of the superior court, and contends- First, that the complaint made against him stated no offense known to the law; and, second, that the court erred in trying the case with a jury, the defendant having waived a jury.

1. The complaint against the respondent was for violation of an ordinance of the city of Grand Rapids, entitled, "An ordinance relative to the preservation of the public peace and good order in the city of Grand Rapids," section 4 of which provides that "no person shall make any indecent exposure of his or her person in the streets, lanes, alleys, or elsewhere in said city." The criticism which is made upon the complaint is that it does not allege that the indecent exposure, which is sufficiently set out in the complaint, was intentionally or designedly made. But, in this respect, the complaint follows the ordinance of the city, so that the cases cited by counsel as to the necessity of such an averment in a prosecution for indecent exposure of the person, at the common law or under the statute making intent an ingredient of the offense, are not in point. The precise question more properly is whether it is within the police power of the city to make it an offense to indecently expose the person, without reference to the intent which accompanies the act. The general rule undoubtedly is that intent is an ingredient of every offense but this is not universally true. On the contrary, there are many statutes and ordinances which impose upon the public the duty to do, or refrain from doing, particular acts at their peril. In People v. Roby, 52 Mich. 577, 18 N.W. 365, a statute of this state, which requires that all saloons, etc., shall be closed on the first day of the week, was held to impose the positive duty upon the proprietor to see to it at his peril that such a place of business was closed on the first day of the week. Under a statute of Massachusetts which provides that whoever kills or causes to be killed, for purposes of sale, a calf less than four weeks old, shall be punished, etc., it was held that it was not necessary to allege in the indictment, under the statute, that the defendant knew that the calf was...