Case Name: PEOPLE v. HARRISON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-05-09
Citations: 75 Mich. App. 556
Docket Number: Docket No. 27917
Parties: PEOPLE v HARRISON
Judges: Before: D. F. Walsh, P. J., and N. J. Kaufman and Allen, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 75
Pages: 556–563

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v HARRISON
Opinion of the Court
1. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Res Gestae Witnesses — Accomplices —Dismissed Charges.
An accomplice of a defendant need not be indorsed as a res gestae witness at the defendant’s trial even though the charges against the accomplice have been dismissed.
2. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Res Gestae Witnesses — Motions for Indorsement — Waiver of Right to Indorsement.
A defense motion to have the prosecution indorse an alleged accomplice of the defendant as a res gestae witness was untimely where the motion for indorsement came only after the prosecutor rested his case and the defendant had full knowledge of the alleged accomplice’s involvement in the incident which formed the basis for the case against the defendant; by waiting without excuse until the prosecutor closed his proofs, the defendant waived any right he may have had to the indorsement and production of the alleged accomplice.
Dissent by N. J. Kaufman, J.
3. Criminal Law — Motions—Directed Verdict — Acquittal— Courts — Evidence.
A court, in passing on a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in a criminal case, must (1) consider only the evidence which had been introduced at the time the motion was made, (2) view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and (3) determine whether that evidence, if credible and believed, would justify a reasonable man in concluding that all elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 708 et seq.
41 Am Jur 2d, Indictments and Informations §§ 55, 56, 60.
[3] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 548-558.
[4] 63 Am Jur 2d, Prostitution §§ 10-12.
[5] 24 Am Jur 2d, Disorderly Houses §§ 23-25.
4. Criminal Law — Prostitution—Receiving Earnings of a Prostitute — Elements—Statutes.
To convict a defendant of the crime of receiving the earnings of a prostitute, it is required that the following elements be established; (1) that the defendant received money or something of value from the prostitute, (2) that the defendant did so knowing the woman to be a prostitute, (3) that the defendant did so knowing the money to be the proceeds of the woman’s earnings from prostitution, and (4) that the defendant furnished nothing of value in return for such money (MCLA 750.457; MSA 28.712).
5. Criminal Law — Prostitution-—House of Prostitution — Elements — statutes.
The conviction of a defendant for maintaining, operating, or keeping or aiding and abetting in the maintaining, operating, or keeping of a house of ill-fame or a bawdy house requires that the following elements be established: (1) the existence of a house of ill-fame or bawdy house, (2) that the defendant kept the house or aided in keeping it, and (3) that the house was resorted to for the purposes of prostitution and lewdness (MCLA 750.452; MSA 28.707).
Appeal from Ingham, Ray C. Hotchkiss, J.
Submitted March 9, 1977, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 27917.)
Decided May 9, 1977.
Clarence Harrison, Jr., was convicted of receiving the earnings of a prostitute and of maintaining, operating, or keeping or aiding and abetting in the maintaining, operating or keeping of a house of ill-fame or a bawdy house. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Raymond L. Scodel-ler, Prosecuting Attorney, and Lee W Atkinson, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Spence, Martin & Benedict, for defendant on appeal.
Before: D. F. Walsh, P. J., and N. J. Kaufman and Allen, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant, Clarence Harrison, Jr., was convicted of receiving the earnings of a prostitute, MCLA 750.457; MSA 28.712, and maintaining, operating, or keeping or aiding and abetting in the maintaining, operating, or keeping of a house of ill-fame or a bawdy house, MCLA 750.452; MSA 28.707. He was sentenced to a term in prison of 12-1/2 to 30 years.
On appeal defendant argues that the court committed reversible error in failing to order the prosecutor to endorse one Rose Collins as a res gestae witness.
An accomplice of the defendant need not be endorsed as a res gestae witness even though the charges against her have been dismissed. People v Moore, 29 Mich App 597; 185 NW2d 834 (1971). A review of the record leads us to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to charge Rose Collins as an accomplice of the defendant. In fact, she was originally so charged although the proceedings against her were discontinued at the time of preliminary examination.
Moreover, defendant had full knowledge of Rose Collins' involvement in the incident which formed the basis for the case against him. His motion for endorsement came only after the prosecutor rested his case. The motion was untimely. People v Jones, 38 Mich App 512; 196 NW2d 817 (1972), lv den, 388 Mich 792 (1972). By waiting without excuse until the prosecutor closed his proofs, defendant waived any right he may have had to the endorse ment and production of Rose Collins. People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79; 228 NW2d 852 (1975).
Our careful review of the entire record further persuades us that the defendant's claims of prose-cutorial misconduct are without merit.
Finally, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence justified the trial court's denial of defense counsel's motion to dismiss. People v Bailey, 69 Mich App 92; 244 NW2d 616 (1976).
The defendant's conviction is affirmed.