# People v. Brown

> Michigan Court of Appeals · June 16, 1997 · 222 Mich. App. 586

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660510

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Brown (After Remand)
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 16, 1997
- **Citations:** 222 Mich. App. 586; 564 N.W.2d 919
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Payant
- **Judges:** Remand, McDonald, Murphy, Payant
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660510

## Opinion text

J. D. Payant, J.
(concurring). I concur. I write separately only because I disagree with the reasoning of the majority in defining a “public place” as being a place where there is a possibility that the unsuspecting public could be exposed to or view the act. I believe that definition is too broad. If a jury was instructed using that definition of a “public place,” there would be very few areas that the jury could not find to be a public place. The only “nonpublic places” would be those places that are completely locked and *594 have no windows. Certainly a room on the 25th floor of a building, with a window, would be a “public place” because there would be a “possibility” that a member of the unsuspecting public could be exposed to or view the act from another building, by use of telescope, or from an aircraft.
I espouse the view of Justice Levin in People v Lino, 447 Mich 571 , 599-601; 527 NW2d 434 (1994), in which he urged the Michigan Supreme Court to follow the lead of the highest courts of New York, Massachusetts, and California and hold that to establish the “public place” element of gross indecency, the proofs must show that when the sexual act was committed the objective circumstances indicated that the conduct could have been seen, and was likely to have been seen, by members of the public.
Following this more objective “reasonable likelihood” test, a factfinder would have much greater latitude in deciding what constitutes a “public place” than is given by the single option of determining whether there was any possibility whatsoever that the conduct could have been observed by members of the public.
I agree with the majority opinion in all other respects, including the order of remand to obtain a more complete record concerning whether the massage parlor was a private place or a public place as a matter of law, or if a jury question has been presented with respect to that issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660510. Public record. Not legal advice.