People v. Bol, Docket No. 6202

• Decision Date: 24 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 3,Docket No. 6202,3
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Richard BOL, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 516

178 N.W.2d 516

23 Mich.App. 244

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Richard BOL, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 6202.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

April 24, 1970.

Released for Publication July 23, 1970.

Richard G. Leonard, Rhoades, McKee & Boer, Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Johnston, III, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and McGREGOR and QUINN, JJ.

McGREGOR, Judge.

Defendant was charged with the crime of interfering with the custody of a minor, pursuant to C.L.1948, § 750.138 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.333). He was tried in circuit court on August 10, 1968, and the jury found him guilty as charged. Defendant appeals his conviction.

The victim in question was a 15-year-old minor, who had a history of being a runaway. On June 27, 1967, the Kent county probate court ordered her to be held in temporary custody of the juvenile court, and to remain in detention until placed in a suitable girls' school. On August 22, 1967, she was placed in the permanent custody of the Barat Home, a private institution.

Defendant was a shift supervisor at the Kent county childrens' home. The complainant was in that home for part of the interim period, between June 22 and August 22, 1967, during which time she became acquainted with the defendant. The minor testified that she looked to defendant for advice and thought of him as a 'big brother.'

After several weeks at the Barat home, she decided to run away. She testified that she phoned the defendant and made arrangements with him to pick her up in Detroit at a friend's apartment the following day. Defendant was alleged to have driven the complainant and another girl friend to Grand Rapids, where they stayed at his apartment until the girls found a place of their own. During the time the complainant was in Grand Rapids, she found various jobs as a babysitter, and lived with a prostitute. When she left this residence, she returned to the home of the defendant; he took her to her sister's home, and she subsequently surrendered herself to the juvenile authorities.

Defendant contends that his conduct, as charged, does not constitute a crime under C.L.1948 § 750.138 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.333). The pertinent part of the information charging defendants reads:

'* * * That on the 14th day of September, 1967, at the City of Grand Rapids, County of Kent, and on divers other times and days between that date and the 24th day of April, 1968, Peter Bol did unlawfully interfere or attempt to interfere with the legal custody of Barat Home having custody under order of Probate Court, Juvenile Division, of the County of Kent, over a delinquent child, to-wit: Bonnie Hudson, also known as Bonita Cyranowski, by aiding and assisting her in running away from the Barat Home and by harboring her in an apartment, and otherwise interfering with the custody of said minor child, contrary to the provisions of § 28.333 of Michigan Statutes Annotated, as amended * * *' The statute reads:

'Any person who shall in any manner interfere or attempt to interfere with the custody of any dependent, neglected or delinquent child who has been adjudged to be such pursuant to act number six (6) of the public acts of nineteen hundred seven (1907), extra session, as amended, being sections twelve thousand eight hundred thirty-four (12834) to twelve thousand eight hundred forty-nine (12849), inclusive, of the compiled laws of nineteen hundred twenty-nine (1929), subsequently to the making of an order of commitment to a state institution or otherwise, in accordance with said act and pending the actual admission and reception of such child as an inmate of the institution, school or home to which commitment is made; And any person who shall entice such neglected, dependent or delinquent child from and out of the custody of the person or persons entitled thereto under the order of the court or who shall in any way interfere or attempt to interfere with such custody; and any person who shall entice or procure any such child committed as aforesaid to leave and depart from any hospital or other place where such child may have been placed pursuant to the order of the court for the purpose of receiving medical treatment pending admission into the state institution, school, home or other institution or place to which commitment may have been made, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one (1) year, or by fine of not more than five hundred (500) dollars.' C.L.1948, § 750.138 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.333). (Emphasis added.)

Defendant argues that a reading of the entire statute reveals that the legislative purpose is to make it unlawful to interfere with the custody of any dependent, neglected or delinquent child who has been adjudged to be such, pursuant to the juvenile court act, and who is in temporary custody, pending his admission and reception at the final place of custody. He asserts that inasmuch as the complainant was admittedly in her final place of custody at the time of the alleged offense, this would not constitute a crime under the statute.

Defendant attempts to add the word 'interim' before the term 'custody' and thereby preclude himself from being within the statute. He envisions the statute as protecting dependent, neglected or delinquent minors pending their admission or reception at a final place of custody, but not protecting them once they have reached their final place of custody. We cannot agree with defendant's conclusions. A minor delinquent is in need of protection against ill winds as much after the granting of permanent custody as during the interim period. His contention is without merit.

Defendant...