People v. Myers
Decision Date | 19 August 1987 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 92855 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Herman MYERS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Nathan T. Fairchild, Pros. Atty., and Frank C. Riley, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Timothy P. Pickard, Adrian, for Myers.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and WAHLS and CROCKETT , JJ.
By way of interlocutory appeal, defendant was granted leave to appeal from an order denying his motion to dismiss the charge against him of one count of gross indecency with another male, M.C.L. Sec. 750.338; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570.
The facts giving rise to this case are essentially undisputed. On October 25, 1985, at approximately 2:45 p.m., a state police trooper, acting in an undercover capacity, was at the entryway of a toilet stall in a public restroom at a highway rest area. Defendant entered the restroom and struck up a conversation with the trooper. After they exchanged small talk, the trooper advised defendant that he had an appointment to keep and had to leave. Defendant leaned across the entryway and continued talking to the trooper. Defendant then began stroking himself in the groin area and stated that he wanted to play with the trooper. When the trooper asked what defendant meant, defendant put his arm around the trooper's shoulder and with his other hand grabbed and began to massage the trooper's groin area. According to the trooper, defendant again stated "let's play." The trooper advised defendant of his official capacity and placed defendant under arrest.
Defendant was bound over to circuit court on one count of gross indecency, one count of assault with intent to commit burglary or any other felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.87; M.S.A. Sec. 28.282, and one count of assault with intent to commit second-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520g(2); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(7)(2).
In circuit court defendant moved to quash the information with respect to all three counts. The motion was granted except as to the gross indecency charge.
Defendant contends on appeal that the facts of this case, as adduced by the evidence presented at the preliminary examination, i.e., his touching of the trooper over his clothing in the genital area, as a matter of law do not establish a violation of the statute prohibiting gross indecency between males, M.C.L. Sec. 750.338; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570. We agree and reverse defendant's bindover.
M.C.L. Sec. 750.338; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570 provides:
"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, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or if such person was at the time of the said offense a sexually delinquent person, may be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be 1 day and the maximum of which shall be life."
As can be seen, gross indecency is not defined by the terms of the statute.
A conflict exists over whether gross indecency is defined by a "common sense of society" test articulated by this Court in People v. Dexter, 6 Mich.App. 247, 253, 148 N.W.2d 915 (1967), or whether the term carries the meaning offered by Justice Levin in People v. Howell, 396 Mich. 16, 24, 238 N.W.2d 148 (1976). In Dexter the defendant was convicted, inter alia, of attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency, specifically, fellatio. In rejecting a claim that the gross indecency statute was unconstitutionally vague, this Court stated:
Dexter, supra, 6 Mich.App. at p. 253, 148 N.W.2d 915.
In part II of Howell, supra, Justice Levin rejected the common sense of society test employed in Dexter, supra, stating at 396 Mich. 24, 238 N.W.2d 148:
10. "This construction makes it unnecessary either to determine whether the Legislature may constitutionally proscribe sexual conduct between consenting adults in private or to make distinctions regarding such conduct between married persons, persons living with each other, dating couples, and between persons of the same sex.
Since part II of Howell was approved by only three justices, it is of no precedential value. See Negri v. Slotkin, 397 Mich. 105, 109, 244 N.W.2d 98 (1976); In re Perry, 148 Mich.App. 601, 609, 385 N.W.2d 287 (1986), lv. den. 426 Mich. 866 (1986). Under these circumstances it appears, and subsequent panels of this Court have held, that the common sense of society test remains viable after Howell, though somewhat limited. People v. William Clark, 68 Mich.App. 48, 52-53, 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976); People v. Masten, 96 Mich.App. 127, 132, 292 N.W.2d 171 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 414 Mich. 16, 322 N.W.2d 547 (1982). 1
Specifically, post-Dexter appellate decisions that have construed the gross indecency statute at issue have arisen from a factual background in which fellatio occurred. The statute has long been applied to cases involving forced fellatio and fellatio with a minor. Howell, supra, 396 Mich. at p. 21, 238 N.W.2d 148; Dexter, supra; Masten, supra; People v. Kalchik, 160 Mich.App. 40, 407 N.W.2d 627 (1987). Prosecutions for sodomy, however, have always been brought under a separate statute, M.C.L. Sec. 750.158; M.S.A. Sec. 28.355. See Dexter, supra; People v. Schmitt, 275 Mich. 575, 267 N.W. 741 (1936). No cases were found in which another sexual act, i.e., the massage of fully covered male genitalia, has occurred.
Similarly, prosecutions brought under other gross indecency statutes which also do not define an "act of gross indecency," namely M.C.L. Sec. 750.338a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570(1) ( ) and M.C.L. Sec. 750.338b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570(2) ( ) have involved acts of fellatio or cunnilingus. People v. Livermore, 9 Mich.App. 47, 56-59, 155 N.W.2d 711 (1967) ( ); People v. McCaleb, 37 Mich.App. 502, 195 N.W.2d 17 (1972), lv. den. 389 Mich. 784 (1973) (fellatio); People v. Rea, 38 Mich.App. 141, 195 N.W.2d 809 (1972), lv. den. 388 Mich. 795 (1972) (cunnilingus); People v. Roy Edwards, 58 Mich.App. 146, 227 N.W.2d 263 (1975), reversed in light of People v. Edwards, supra, 396 Mich. 825, 238 N.W.2d 536 (1976) (fellatio); People v. Towlen, 66 Mich.App. 577, 239 N.W.2d 668 (1976), lv. den. 397 Mich. 831 (1976) (fellatio).
In each of the above cases (except Livermore, which did not involve a determination of whether the sexual act committed constituted gross indecency), the trier of fact determined that the act was grossly indecent in light of community mores. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lino, Docket Nos. 92352
...that oral, anal, or manual sexual acts committed in private by consenting adults are not grossly indecent. As in People v. Myers, 161 Mich.App. 215, 409 N.W.2d 788 (1987), and People v. Emmerich, 175 Mich.App. 283, 437 N.W.2d 30 (1989), this Court should state what does not constitute gross......
-
Love v. Mosley
...the underlyingacts which support the conviction. "[G]ross indecency is not defined by the terms of the statute." People v. Myers, 161 Mich. App. 215, 217, 409 N.W.2d 788 (1987). "Until the Michigan Legislature provides a workable definition of gross indecency, malleable enough to protect an......
-
People v. Lynch
...alleged here comes under the Howell test. We believe it is accepted that fellatio is also prohibited. See Howell; People v. Myers, 161 Mich.App. 215, 220, 409 N.W.2d 788 (1987). We accept that merely touching the clothed groin area or genitals would not be. Emmerich, supra; Myers, supra. Ha......
-
People v. Emmerich
...which shall be life." [M.C.L. Sec. 750.338; M.S.A. Sec. 28.570.] I As recently noted by a panel of this Court in People v. Myers, 161 Mich.App. 215, 217, 409 N.W.2d 788 (1987), lv. den. 430 Mich. 859 (1988), a conflict exists as to the standard to be applied in determining whether a defenda......