Opinion ID: 1303659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PEOPLE v BRASHIER

Text: Brashier was charged in four separate informations. In each, a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old boy was victimized by Brashier and codefendant Goike. These events occurred in November and December of 1989. The details varied, but the basic theme was the same. Defendant Brashier would strike up a conversation with the minor victim, eventually asking whether the victim was interested in earning some money by beatin' up a queer. Defendant Brashier would buy the minor victims lunch and then take them to a hotel room where codefendant Goike was waiting. With Brashier directing the proceedings, the minors would physically and verbally abuse Goike, while Goike masturbated. The minors would hit Goike with a stick, urinate on him, vomit on him, pour syrup on him, and force him to consume combinations of these materials. All the while, Goike would continue to masturbate, eventually to climax. For the most part, defendant Brashier's participation was limited to directing the activities. At times, he would actively participate in the abuse of Goike. At the end of these sessions, the minors were paid and threatened with harm if they ever revealed what happened. There was never any direct physical sexual contact between the victims and either Brashier or Goike. In separate informations corresponding to the four minors, these defendants were charged with one count of procuring or attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency between the male minor victim and another male (the codefendant). In the circuit court, the defendant filed a motion to quash. Oakland Circuit Court Judge Fred Mester denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal, holding that the adoption of the Howell test by the Lino panel compelled the result. On the prosecutor's petition, the Court of Appeals agreed to convene a special panel to resolve the conflict between the Howell standard and the common-sense-of-the-community standard. The special panel issued a per curiam opinion rejecting the Howell standard for gross indecency and adopting the common-sense-of-the-community standard. 197 Mich App 672, 679; 496 NW2d 385 (1992). The three concurring judges would have adopted the Howell test; however, they agreed that this defendant nevertheless could be bound over. This Court granted leave to appeal, 443 Mich 882 (1993).