People v. Holland, Docket No. 14600
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Citation | 49 Mich.App. 76,211 N.W.2d 224 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 14600,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Edward HOLLAND, Defendant-Appellant |
| Decision Date | 28 August 1973 |
Page 224
v.
Francis Edward HOLLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Released for Publication Oct. 24, 1973.
Kenneth J. Morris, Livonia, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan,
Page 225
Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, App. Div., Gerard A. Poehlman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.[49 Mich.App. 77] Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and DANHOF and BASHARA, JJ.
V. J. BRENNAN, Presiding Judge.
Defendant was convicted of committing an act of gross indecency with a female person (M.C.L.A. § 750.338b; M.S.A. § 28.570(2)) by a jury in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The testimony at trial revealed that on the evening of January 19, 1972, two members of the Dearborn Heights Police Department observed defendant's car near a store entrance in a private parking lot. A few moments later, the officers again passed the store; at that time they noted that defendant's car had been moved to a darker area of the parking lot. The officers then placed the vehicle under observation for approximately 15 minutes, and noted that the motor was running and the lights were out.
Having their curiosity aroused, and their suspicions raised, the officers approached the car. After turning on their flashlights, they observed the defendant; they also observed the fact that his trousers were opened. Defendant's companion, a girl of chronologically young years, but of questionable naivete, had her hand on defendant's penis.
Defendant was arrested and brought to trial. The only significant disparity between the testimony of the defendant and that of his companion was whether her hand made its way to defendant's genitals of her own free will, or whether the defendant placed her hand there. There is absolutely no question that her participation was quite voluntary.
Defendant's first argument on appeal consists of a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
[49 Mich.App. 78] 'Any male person who, in public or in private, commits or is a party to the commission of any act of gross indecency with a female person shall be guilty of a felony, punishable as provided in this section. Any female person who, in public or in private, commits or is a party to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Penn, Docket No. 23048
...whether the gross indecency between males statute could sweep too broadly and infringe upon a fundamental right. In People v. Holland, 49 Mich.App. 76, 211 N.W.2d 224 (1973), this Court commented on M.C.L.A. § 750.338b; M.S.A. § 28.570(2) which prohibits gross indecency between a male and a......
-
People v. Myers, Docket No. 92855
...In People v. Danielac, 38 Mich.App. 230, 195 N.W.2d 922 (1972), app. dis. 389 Mich. 545, 208 N.W.2d 167 (1973), and People v. Holland, 49 Mich.App. 76, 211 N.W.2d 224 (1973), however, this Court determined, as a matter of law, that the sexual acts at issue did not constitute acts of gross i......
-
People v. Trammell, Docket No. 92492
...we do not see how the action with which defendant is charged could possibly constitute a violation of the statute." 49 Mich.App. 79, 211 N.W.2d 224. We view Danielac and Holland to be aberrational and therefore, decline to follow them. What these cases embody is a judicial encroachment on t......
-
Com. v. Ferguson
...that there was a reasonable likelihood that the defendant would have been seen by persons traveling thereon." See People v. Holland, 49 Mich.App. 76, 211 N.W.2d 224 (1973) (reversing conviction for private conduct in car parked in dark area at business establishment parking lot); State v. J......