Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Lino

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1994No. Docket Nos. 92352, 95687, (Calendar Nos. 4-5)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBoyle, J.

This case is about the scope of the statute punishing gross indecency. It is my position that the offense is limited to specific conduct. The Court reads the statute as if the Legislature intended it to be general morals legislation. Specifically, the result of today’s decision is that the statute will punish the conduct this Court determines to be immoral. Therefore, I dissent.

I agree that defendant Lino’s conviction should be affirmed. I write separately, however, because I disagree with the Court’s conclusion in Brashier that the gross indecency statute covers the conduct alleged.

The…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Rose v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. People v. HowellMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Negri v. SlotkinMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  4. People v. SwiftMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
  5. People v. DexterMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API