People v. Healy, 126.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 126.,126. |
| Citation | 265 Mich. 317,251 N.W. 393 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HEALY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Thaddeus B. Taylor, Judge.
Douglas Healy was convicted of taking improper liberties with the person of a female child ten years of age, and he appeals.
Conviction set aside, and defendant discharged.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Thomas D. Anderson, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Bartel J. Jonkman, Pros. Atty., of Grand Rapids, for the People.
The information in this case charged the defendant with taking indecent and improper liberties with the person of a female child ten years of age. Upon the trial she testified that defendant, standing in front of his house, said he had a job for her and would pay her a nickel; that she went into the front room with him, and that he said they would better go into the kitchen as somebody might see them; that in the kitchen he told her to sit down; that she ‘was wearing bloomers with rubber bands in the bottom, he pulled up both legs of the bloomers about half way between the knees and the thigh,’ and told her he was going to draw a picture; that he had a paper and sat down in a chair and began drawing her legs with a pencil; that some of the other children called to her and she wanted to go, and he gave her a nickel and told her not to teel anybody, and she said ‘yes.’
The defendant testified that he worked in an automobile plant, and that plainting was a ‘side line’ with him; he had taken drawing lessons in school and had painted about ten pictures; that he had drawn faces, but not a picture of a living person; that this child was the first model he ever had. He described what occurred as she did, and said he asked her not to tell because ‘she started whimpering, I thought she would go home crying, and something would be thought wrong.’ He was at that time 41 years of age. Dr. Byers testified that he had purchased a picture from the defendant and ‘knew he was an artist.’
The case was tried before the judge without a jury. He stated:
He, however, found that defendant's conduct was ‘improper’ and convicted him ‘of taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lino, Docket Nos. 92352
...liberties, along with indecent exposure, was defined in terms of the "common sense of the community." See, e.g., People v. Healy, 265 Mich. 317, 319, 251 N.W. 393 (1933); People v. Visel, 275 Mich. 77, 79, 265 N.W. 781 (1936); People v. Noyes, 328 Mich. 207, 211, 43 N.W.2d 331 (1950) (quoti......
-
Sorenson v. State
...conduct required or forbidden. "Liberties" are such as common sense of society would regard as indecent and improper. People v. Healy, 265 Mich. 317, 251 N.W. 393 (1933). "Indecent liberties" is self- defining. State v. Stuhr, 1 Wash.2d 521, 96 P.2d 479 (1939); State v. Holte, N.D., 87 N.W.......
-
People v. Dombkowski
...the common sense of society would regard as indecent and improper.' People v. Hicks (1893), 98 Mich. 86, 56 N.W. 1102; People v. Healy (1933), 265 Mich. 317, 251 N.W. 393; People v. Visel (1936), 275 Mich. 77, 265 N.W. 781; People v. Lakin (1938), 286 Mich. 282, 282 N.W. 149; People v. Bran......
-
People v. Szymanski, 71.
...statute penalizes conduct that is of such character that the common sense of society regards it as indecent and improper. People v. Healy, 265 Mich. 317, 251 N.W. 393;People v. Visel, 275 Mich. 77, 265 N.W. 781. The offense against the person of the complaining witness, as detailed in her t......