People v. Hill, Docket No. 6966

• Decision Date: 20 April 1971
• Docket Number: Docket No. 6966,No. 1,1
• Citation: 188 N.W.2d 896,32 Mich.App. 404
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. HILL, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 896

188 N.W.2d 896

32 Mich.App. 404

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 6966.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

April 20, 1971.

Released for Publication Aug. 17, 1971.

William R. Stackpoole, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Gerard A. Poehlman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and R. B. BURNS and LEVIN, JJ.

LESINSKI, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted of accepting money from the earnings of a prostitute, M.C.L.A. § 750.457 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.712), by the trial court sitting without a jury. The prosecution's witness, Laverne Bradley, testified that defendant invited her to work as a prostitute for him, that she and defendant lived together from August 7, 1968 to August 29, 1968, and that she handed over virtually all of her earnings to defendant during that period. The witness also related that defendant paid the rent on their hotel room and purchased food and clothing for her during that period. Defendant took the stand and acknowledged that he and Miss Bradley had lived together for a time but denied that he encouraged her to engage in acts of prostitution or that he had accepted any portion of her earnings.

On appeal, defendant directs our attention to the witness's testimony to the effect that defendant met the bills that the witness incurred while the pair dwelt under the same roof. The penal statute under which defendant was prosecuted provides:

'Any person who shall knowingly accept, receive, levy or appropriate any money or valuable thing Without consideration from the proceeds of the earnings of any woman engaged in prostitution, or any person, knowing a female to be a prostitute, shall live or derive support or maintenance, in whole or in part, from the earnings or proceeds of the prostitution of said prostitute, or from moneys loaned or advanced to or charged against her by any keeper or manager or inmate of a house or other place where prostitution is practiced or allowed, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than twenty years. And such acceptance, receipt, levy or appropriation of such money or valuable thing, shall, upon any proceeding or trial for violation of this section, be presumptive evidence of lack of consideration.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Defendant argues that, in light of Miss Bradley's testimony, the trial court's finding of fact that Miss Bradley gave her earnings to defendant without consideration must be regarded as clearly erroneous. Defendant maintains that the statutory phrase 'without consideration' may not be interpreted to mean 'without adequate consideration' and that the furnishing of such necessities of life as food, housing, and wearing apparel constitutes such consideration as to take one's conduct out of the ambit of the statute. We find persuasive the reasoning of the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Harris (Mo.1965), 396 S.W.2d 585. In construing a statute almost identical to the one before us, the court noted when presented with facts substantially similar to the instant case, at pp. 587--589:

'Under the concept of consideration as defined in refused Instruction No. A, if appellant gave anything of value to Sharon in return for all or part of her earnings from prostitution, he could not be convicted for he would not have received such sums without consideration. Anything of value would include clothing given by appellant, or food provided, or even the bed furnished on which the acts of prostitution were performed. This concept includes services as well as things and would include acts of one in bringing men to her for the purpose of engaging her services. Was this the concept of consideration meant and intended by the Legislature in what is now (RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.) § 563.040 when it used the words 'without consideration?' We think not.

'Certainly the Legislature did not intend by the terms of § 563.040 to exonerate those who agree with a woman to furnish her with the means to conduct her trade, namely, bed, board or clothing, in return for her agreement to turn over her earnings received from prostitution. An interpretation that it did so intend would excuse the bawdy house operator, the madam, and even the pimp or procurer, all persons at whom the statute obviously was directed. It would excuse appellant who took Sharon to one who operated a bawdy house and arranged with her to put Sharon to work, with bed, board and clothing furnished, in return for which, and as a part of the agreement placing Sharon in commercialized prostitution, appellant was to receive one-half of her earnings, with the other half thereof going to the madam. We conclude the Legislature did not so intend.

'We are of the opinion that the term 'without consideration' has reference to instances in which the consideration is not incidental to unlawful conduct which places the woman in prostitution or continues her therein. For example, if a known prostitute went into a store and made a purchase, or went to a physician and received medical attention (paying the storekeeper or physician with money obtained by engaging in prostitution), the goods or services would constitute consideration for the amount paid by the prostitute. The storekeeper or physician would not be guilty of accepting or receiving, without consideration, earnings of a woman received from prostitution, even though he knew of the woman's trade...