People v. Wolf

• Decision Date: 23 January 1906
• Citation: 76 N.E. 592,183 N.Y. 464
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WOLF.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

183 N.Y. 464

76 N.E. 592

PEOPLE

v.WOLF.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 23, 1906.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Sadie Wolf was convicted of crime, and from an order of the Appellate Division (95 N. Y. Supp. 264,107 App. Div. 449) affirming the same she appeals. Reversed.

The date when the defendant is alleged in the indictment to have committed the crime of abducting Katie Garfinkel, a female under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of prostitution, is May 17, 1904. Upon the trial a serious question of fact arose out of discrepancies and conflict in the testimony of the witnesses for the people as to whether the complainant was within the age required by the statute in order to make the act charged a crime. Pen. Code, § 282, par. 1. The assistant district attorney, in opening the case, after reading the statute and explaining the nature of the crime, proceeded as follows: ‘Now, Katie Garfinkel is a little girl who was born September 26, 1888. * * * She never knew who her father was. She was a bastard. Her mother died in childbirth in giving birth to her. She was adopted by her mother's sister. When she was 5 years old that mother's sister died and the child was without a bolld relative. The mother's sister's husband brought the child to America and took care of it until she was 11 or 12 years old. He married again, but the child, I believe, continued to live with him, or went to live with another relative here in town. At 11 or 12 years of age she falsified her age in order to obtain employment.’ At this point the counsel for the defendant interposed and objected to the statement that at 11 or 12 years of age the complainant falsified her age in order to obtain employment. The objection was overruled and an exception taken. Thereupon the prosecuting officer continued: ‘She went to work in one of our dry goods stores, and she finally went to work in Simpson & Crawford's. She worked there, I believe, about two years, until the 7th of May, until one of the early Saturdays in May, of this year. She had become acquainted, through his coming into that store, with a man named Robinson. On that Saturday night Robinson met her.’ Here the counsel for the defendant again interposed, and objected ‘to the district attorney now detailing to this jury any transaction or intimacy between the complaining witness, Katie Garfinkel, and a man by the name of Robinson. I furthermore object to his making any statement to this jury of anything regarding this girl prior to the 17th of May, 1904, the date when it is charged in this indictment that we were guilty of abducting that girl for immoral purposes.’ The objection was overruled and an exception taken. The assistant district attorney, resuming, said: ‘On this Saturday night she left Simpson & Crawford's a virgin. She went with Robinson to some restaurant. Sunday she was not a virgin.’ The defendant's counsel objected to this statement, and asked the court to strike it out and direct the jury to disregard it, on the ground that she was not indicted for anything that happened between the complaining witness and a man named Robinson. The objection was overruled and an exception noted. The assistant district attorney then said: ‘On Sunday morning she was ruined. She was taken to a flat kept by a man named Hirschkovitz.’ The defendant's counsel objected to this statement, and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard it; but the objection was overruled and the defendant excepted. Thereupon the court said: ‘I would suggest, Mr. House, that you make a memorandum as the district attorney proceeds, and when he finishes you may move to have such matter as you desire stricken out and the jury instructed to disregard it.’ The counsel for the defendant consented, but requested that the minutes should show that the practice was suggested by the court, and the assistant district attorney then completed his address without further interruption. Among other things he said: ‘After her ruin on the Saturday night, Robinson telling her that he was going to take her to his mother's and marry her, he took her to the flat of a procurer named Hirschkovitz. There she met a man named Altman, who was another of the same type. She felt that she could not go home. There were no blood relatives to forgive her at home. The only thing that had come to her in life, her virtue, was taken from her. Hirschkovitz and his wife appeared to be friendly with her and willing to assist her. They shielded her under their roof for a week, while they were breaking down what remained of the moral structure of that child. Altman slept with her night after night at Hirschkovitz's flat. * * * The pimp, Altman, has confessed and pleaded guilty. Twelve men have looked Hirschkovitz in the face and said ‘Guilty,’ and he is not here. Now comes the last act, when 12 men are asked to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the woman who finally received the fruit of the depravity of the pimp and the procurer. * * * The pimp, who has pleaded guilty, if it is necessary and you desire to hear him, I will put upon the stand, and he will rehearse his own perfidy before you.'

At the close of the opening the defendant's counsel asked the court to discharge the defendant upon the ground of a mistrial, because the district attorney had ‘gone beyond what he was permitted to go into in opening this case to the jury.’ He continued as follows: ‘We object, first, that the district attorney in his opening address had no right to refer to any transactions between the girl, Katie Garfinkel, who is the complaining witness in this case, and one Robinson, resulting in the seduction of the girl Garfinkel by Robinson. We object to the declaration on the part of the district attorney that for the week following the alleged abduction of the girl by Robinson the Garfinkel girl was at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Hirschkovitz, and that Mr. and Mrs. Hirschkovitz were engaged during that week in breaking down what was left of the moral character of the Garfinkel girl. We also object to the statement on the part of the district attorney that during the week the Garfinkel girl was in the house of Mr. and Mrs. Hirschkovitz, Altman, the pimp, slept with her every night. We also object to the statement of the district attorney that a jury of 12 men of this county have looked Hirschkovitz in the face and convicted him of participating in the abduction of this girl. We also object to the declaration or statement on the part of the district attorney that Altman, the pimp, who was engaged with Hirschkovitz in breaking down the moral character of this girl, has pleaded guilty to the abduction charged against this defendant.’ These objections were made upon the ground that ‘all this story * * * was before the day set out in the indictment * * * and cannot have anything to do with this case, other than to arouse the passions and inflame the minds of this jury against this defendant.’ The trial judge declined to interfere and an exception was taken, but in making this ruling he added: ‘I instruct the jury at this time to disregard any statement that was made by the district attorney as to the conviction of Hirschkovitz and the plea of guilty offered by Altman.’ The district attorney thereupon remarked: ‘I wanted to show that, your honor, to show why I did not produce Hirschkovitz here as a witness.’ The court said: ‘You may show that at the proper time. I do not hold now that you may not show it, but at this time the jury are instructed to disregard it.’ The defendant's counsel objected to the modification as made by the court, and renewed his motion; but it was denied, and an exception was taken, ‘based upon each and every ground laid as a foundation and basis for the motion.’ No witness was called by the defendant, and just before the people rested the district attorney said: ‘I now offer the record in the magistrate's court in the case of the people against Sadie Wolf. I offer it simply because I want to comment on one or two facts which are shown by it-not evidence as shown by the affidavits or anything of that kind-in my summing up.’ This was objected to upon various grounds, but the court received it as ‘a part of the record and the same as if they were offering the indictment in the case.’ The defendant excepted. The record thus offered was in the nature of a criminal information presented to a police magistrate in order to procure a warrant for the arrest of the defendant and two others, Hirschkovitz and Altman, who were not indicted with her. It consisted of four affidavits, in one of which Katie Garfinkel swore that she would be 16 years of age on the 26th of September, 1904. The affidavit entered fully into the relations of herself and Robinson, and among other things stated the following: ‘On or about the 7th of May, 1904, Robinson left the store of said corporation with me at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and, it being a very warm day, said that he wanted to get something to drink, and asked me to go with him. We went to a hotel on the corner of Ninth street and Third avenue. He asked me what I wanted to drink, and I said that I wanted lemonade. A drink that looked like lemonade was brought to me and I lost consciousness. All that I remember is that I felt Robinson drag me into the room and shut the door. When I awoke from the stupor induced from what I had had to drink I found myself in a room alone and found that I had been ravished.’ She also stated that Altman ravished her several times, gave her a venereal disease, and on the 17th of May, 1904, telling her that he would take her to a hospital for treatment, took her to a disorderly house kept by the defendant; that the defendant took away her clothes by force, and not only compelled her to remain in the house, but to submit to acts of sexual intercourse with men under the threat that she would have Altman beat her if she did not submit....