843 N.W.2d 775
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Undercover officer, posing as prostitution client, interacted with Hagar and Norwood in Detroit.
- Norwood and Hagar offered to send the officer to Florida with benefits to engage in prostitution.
- Defendants claimed the officer could earn money through prostitution and pornography.
- District court denied binding over for pandering, MCL 750.455; circuit court affirmed.
- Prosecution appealed; Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether bindover was warranted.
- Court concluded pandering statute supports bindover where defendants recruited interstate prostitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused by not binding over on pandering | Norwood/Hagar urged no basis to bind over | Prosecution argued statutory pandering applied | Yes; district court abused, bindover proper |
| What constitutes pandering under MCL 750.455 and Morey interpretation | Morey supports broader application to recruitment | Morey requires acts to cause becoming prostitute | Pandering includes recruiting to come into state for prostitution (interstate) |
| Standards of review for bindover decisions | De novo review for legal questions | Trial court’s discretion should govern factual sufficiency | De novo review applied; district court erred on law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Morey, 461 Mich 325 (1999) (pandering eight activities; interpret statutory text and intent)
- People v Beydoun, 283 Mich App 314 (2009) (de novo review of bindover; no deference to circuit court)
- People v Redden, 290 Mich App 65 (2010) (bindover review; abuse of discretion standard)
- People v Armisted, 295 Mich App 32 (2011) (statutory interpretation; question of law de novo)
- Auto-Owners Ins Co v Stenberg Bros, Inc, 227 Mich App 45 (1997) (statutory terms separated by 'or' indicate alternatives)