THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.145a Accosting, enticing or soliciting child for immoral purpose.
Sec. 145a.
A person who accosts, entices, or solicits a child less than 16 years of age, regardless of whether the person knows the individual is a child or knows the actual age of the child, or an individual whom he or she believes is a child less than 16 years of age with the intent to induce or force that child or individual to commit an immoral act, to submit to an act of sexual intercourse or an act of gross indecency, or to any other act of depravity or delinquency, or who encourages a child less than 16 years of age, regardless of whether the person knows the individual is a child or knows the actual age of the child, or an individual whom he or she believes is a child less than 16 years of age to engage in any of those acts is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $4,000.00, or both.
History: Add. 1935, Act 174, Eff. Sept. 21, 1935 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 88, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 750.145a ;-- Am. 2002, Act 45, Eff. June 1, 2002
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
145
cases (
57 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case:
People v. Kowalski, 803 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. 2011).
People v. Kowalski, 803 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. 2011).
· cites it 39× “The instructions given at trial did not properly apprise the jury of the actus reus of the accosting a minor statute and were therefore plainly erroneous.”
People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 9× “10-035017-FH, defendant was convicted of accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child (CP) for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a, and sentenced to 13 months to 4 years in prison.”
People v. Meyers, 649 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 16× “Defendant Ronald Meyers pleaded guilty of using the Internet to communicate with a person for the purpose of attempting to commit con-, duct proscribed under MCL 750.145a, which violated MCL 750.145d(l)(b).”
People v. Golba, 729 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “] The prosecution's theory in Meyers was that the defendant had used the Internet to attempt to commit an act in violation of MCL 750.145a. [3] Meyers, supra at 639 , 649 N.”
People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “520b(l)(c) (penetration under circumstances involving another felony), and accosting a minor for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a. The trial court, applying a fourth-offense habitual offender enhancement under MCL 769.”
People v. Lino, 527 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 1994).
· cites it 6× “" Another example is MCL 750.145a; MSA 28.341, which makes it a misdemeanor to "accost, entice, or solicit a child under the age of 16 with intent to induce or force said child to commit an immoral act, or to submit to an act of sexual intercourse, or an act of gross indecency,…”
People v. Bosca, 871 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “] At the time SORA was enacted, listed offenses thus consisted of the following: accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a and MCL 750.145b; involvement in child sexually abusive activity or child sexually abusive material, MCL 750.”
People v. Davis-Christian, 891 N.W.2d 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“520c(l)(a), and one count of accosting a child for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a. Defendant alleged that during the complainant’s forensic interview regarding these incidents, the complainant stated that defendant’s alleged assault of her had happened like the “last time,”…”
People v. Endres, 711 N.W.2d 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“520d(1)(a), and accosting a minor for an immoral purpose, MCL 750.145a, relating to sexual acts perpetrated on his younger cousin.”
People v. Althoff, 760 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“It was undisputed that the defendant had been convicted of a state-law violation, using the Internet in an attempt to commit conduct proscribed under MCL 750.145a, which violated MCL 750.145d(l)(b).”
Doe v. Kelley, 961 F. Supp. 1105 (W.D. Mich. 1997).
“§ 750.145a; — accosting, enticing or soliciting a child for immoral purposes, second offense, M.”
People v. Wheat, 223 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “The trial court refused defendant’s request that he instruct the jury on accosting a child for immoral purposes, MCLA 750.145a; MSA 28.341. It is defendant’s position that this was error because accosting a child for immoral purposes is a lesser offense included in taking…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.