People v. Mayes

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Mayes

205 N.W.2d 212, 44 Mich. App. 482, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1023

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 1973

DocketDocket 14014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 N.W.2d 212 (People v. Mayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Mayes, 205 N.W.2d 212, 44 Mich. App. 482, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1023 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals, as of right, from her plea-based conviction of, and sentence for, operating a bawdy house or house or place *483 resorted to for the purpose of prostitution (MCLA 750.452; MSA 28.707).

At the preliminary examination, no showing was made by the people that the premises controlled by defendant had a reputation in the community as a house of ill-fame. On motion by defendant to quash the information, the trial court quashed that part which charged defendant with operating or maintaining a house of ill-fame. Defendant then pled guilty to the truncated information, reserving the right to appeal from the trial court’s partial quashing!

Defendant contends that an :~sential element of a charge under the statute, supra, is that the place in question was a house of ill-fame, and that such element requires a showing of bad reputation in the community. People v Pinkerton, 79 Mich 110 (1889), one of the cases on which defendant relies, is based on a prior version of this statute and is inapplicable here. In People v Lee, 307 Mich 743 (1943), also relied on by Ms. Mayes, the defendant was, unlike Ms. Mayes, charged with operating a house of ill-fame.

The present statute provides that:

"Any person who shall keep, maintain or operate, or aid and abet in keeping, maintaining or operating a house of ill-fame, bawdy house or any house or place resorted to for the purpose of prostitution * * * shall be guilty of a felony, * * * .”

We note that the disjunctive is used and therefore a violation of the statute occurs whenever a person operates or maintains (1) a house of ill-fame, or (2) a bawdy house, or (3) a house or place resorted to for the purpose of prostitution. The trial court correctly held that only where the operation or maintenance of a house of ill-fame is charged, is reputation of the premises an essential element.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals, as of right, from her plea-based conviction of, and sentence for, operating a bawdy house or house or place *483 resorted to for the purpose of prostitution (MCLA 750.452; MSA 28.707).

At the preliminary examination, no showing was made by the people that the premises controlled by defendant had a reputation in the community as a house of ill-fame. On motion by defendant to quash the information, the trial court quashed that part which charged defendant with operating or maintaining a house of ill-fame. Defendant then pled guilty to the truncated information, reserving the right to appeal from the trial court’s partial quashing!

Defendant contends that an :~sential element of a charge under the statute, supra, is that the place in question was a house of ill-fame, and that such element requires a showing of bad reputation in the community. People v Pinkerton, 79 Mich 110 (1889), one of the cases on which defendant relies, is based on a prior version of this statute and is inapplicable here. In People v Lee, 307 Mich 743 (1943), also relied on by Ms. Mayes, the defendant was, unlike Ms. Mayes, charged with operating a house of ill-fame.

The present statute provides that:

"Any person who shall keep, maintain or operate, or aid and abet in keeping, maintaining or operating a house of ill-fame, bawdy house or any house or place resorted to for the purpose of prostitution * * * shall be guilty of a felony, * * * .”

We note that the disjunctive is used and therefore a violation of the statute occurs whenever a person operates or maintains (1) a house of ill-fame, or (2) a bawdy house, or (3) a house or place resorted to for the purpose of prostitution. The trial court correctly held that only where the operation or maintenance of a house of ill-fame is charged, is reputation of the premises an essential element.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.W.2d 212, 44 Mich. App. 482, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayes-michctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack