People v. Masten

• Decision Date: 09 August 1982
• Docket Number: 66414,Nos. 65688,s. 65688
• Citation: 414 Mich. 16,322 N.W.2d 547
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Scott MASTEN, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Van Tyris MABRY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 547

322 N.W.2d 547

414 Mich. 16

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Scott MASTEN, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Van Tyris MABRY, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 65688, 66414.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Aug. 9, 1982.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., David H. Sawyer, Pros. Atty., and Carol S. Irons, Chief Appellate Atty., Grand Rapids, for the People.

Jeffrey S. Masten, in pro. per.

Murphy, Burns & McInerney, P. C. by Peter P. Walsh, Grand Rapids, for defendant Mabry.

PER CURIAM.

These cases raise identical questions regarding interpretation of M.C.L. Sec. 750.338; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570. At issue is whether a defendant may be convicted of attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency when the act proposed would be between the defendant and another person. We conclude the statute does not apply in such circumstances.

I

In each of these cases there was evidence that the male defendants suggested to other men that the defendant would be willing to perform certain sexual acts with them, in one case for money. No sexual activities took place. ¹ Each was convicted of attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency under M.C.L. Sec. 750.338; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570:

"Any male person who, in public or in private, commits or is a party to the commission of or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of any act of gross indecency with another male person shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years * * *." (Emphasis added.)

In Masten, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, the majority citing People v. Dexter, 6 Mich.App. 247, 148 N.W.2d 915 (1967), as implicitly holding that "the term 'procure' is not limited to situations in which one person attempts to induce an illegal act involving two or more other persons". People v. Masten, 96 Mich.App. 127, 133, fn. 7, 292 N.W.2d 171 (1980). Judge Bronson dissented, concluding:

"It is apparent that the ordinary use of the word 'procure' in the context of sexual activity means the facilitation of sexual activity between two other individuals." 96 Mich.App. 139, 292 N.W.2d 171.

The defendant filed a request for review of his conviction under Administrative Order 1977-4, 400 Mich. lxvii, and we ordered the prosecutor to show cause why the conviction should not be reversed for the reasons set forth in Judge Bronson's dissent and by the Court of Appeals panel in People v. Mabry, 102 Mich.App. 336, 301 N.W.2d 528 (1980). The prosecutor has filed a written response.

In Mabry, the Court of Appeals reversed, expressing agreement with Judge Bronson's analysis, and reasoning that the offense charged here is distinguished from solicitation ² because the later applies to two-party transactions while attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency requires that the proposed sexual activity be between two persons other than the defendant. The prosecutor has filed a delayed application for leave to appeal.

II

We agree with the Court of Appeals in Mabry and Judge Bronson's dissent in Masten that the part of the statute referring to one who "procures or attempts to procure" an act of gross indecency is meant to apply to situations in which the defendant facilitates or attempts to facilitate the commission of an act of gross indecency by two other persons. This is simply the more sensible reading of the section. It is meant to proscribe two kinds of conduct: committing gross indecency and bringing about gross indecency. If "procure" is read to include bringing about such acts involving oneself, it adds nothing, since the actor will also have committed the act of gross indecency. Such a reading would have the anomalous result of subjecting those who commit or procure (for themselves) an act of gross indecency to the same five-year penalty, but, if there is only an attempt, one who attempts to commit the act can be sentenced to no more than two and one-half years, ³ while one who attempts to procure (for himself) such an act can be sentenced to five years. If procuring is limited to three-party transactions this sentencing provision is rational. The conduct of one who attempts to procure such an act between others is not made either more or less culpable by the fortuitous circumstance that the other parties commit or do not commit the act of gross indecency.

We are not persuaded by the cases on which the prosecutor relies. Although People v. Dexter, supra, involved a conviction for procuring an act of gross indecency in which the defendant was a participant, the issue was not raised or discussed in the opinion. While People v. Carey, 217 Mich. 601, 187 N.W. 261 (1922), apparently rejected an argument like that raised here, it did so without either explicitly explaining or, indeed, explicitly stating the issue. ⁴ For the reasons stated...