Abrams v. State
| Decision Date | 15 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | A-2640. |
| Parties | ABRAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
An information charging a person with the crime of pandering which only pleads the general terms of the statute, and alleges that the accused "did by promise and device and scheme persuade and encourage" a female named to become an inmate of a house of prostitution, is insufficient, when properly challenged by demurrer, for the reason that it is impossible for the accused, under the information, to know what kind of promise the state intends to prove, whether a promise of employment or remuneration, gift or forbearance or which one of the almost innumerable and inconceivable devices and schemes the state intends to rely upon, and ignores the constitutional and statutory safeguard and guaranty that an indictment or information must contain a statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.
The gist of the offense of pandering is not that a woman is in a house of prostitution, but that she has been procured or induced by some of the means named in the statute to enter or remain in a house of prostitution. Hence a state of facts must be pleaded that will show that the person charged did in reality, by some one or more of the means named in the statute, procure or induce the female to enter or remain in such house.
Since every person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty it logically follows that he must be presumed also to be ignorant of what is intended to be proved against him, except as he is informed by the indictment or information.
Where words or terms used in the statute have no technical or precise meaning which of themselves imply or define the offense, then the indictment or information must set forth the particular things or acts charged to have been done with reasonable certainty and distinctness.
It is not a technical, but a sound and fundamental, rule of criminal procedure that the accused must be apprised at the outset by the indictment or information with reasonable certainty of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Error from District Court, Comanche County; Cham Jones, Judge.
Minnie Abrams was convicted of violating the pandering statute, and she brings error. Reversed.
J. F Thomas, of Lawton, for plaintiff in error.
R McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error in this case, Minnie Abrams, who will be referred to as defendant, was charged jointly with her husband, George Abrams, of violating our statute on pandering. A severance was had, and the defendant, Minnie Abrams, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary and to pay a fine of $500, and from this judgment and sentence she appeals to this court.
The appeal is by transcript, and the complaint urged is the insufficiency of the information, which objection was properly raised by demurrer, and motion in arrest of judgment. And it is our judgment that this complaint is well taken.
The charging part of the information is that:
"* * * On the 5th day of August, 1915, George Abrams and Minnie Abrams, then and there being, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously procure a female, to wit, Rose Stanfield, to become an inmate of a house of ill fame, to wit, a place where prostitution was encouraged and allowed, in the said state of Oklahoma, to wit, at the rooming house of the said defendants, George Abrams and Minnie Abrams, at No. 317 E avenue, in the city of Lawton, Comanche county, Okl., and did by promise and device and scheme persuade and encourage the said Rose Stanfield to become an inmate of said house of prostitution contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state."
The state insists that the information uses the very language of the statute in charging the offense, and that that is sufficient to make the information good. In reply to this we will say that there are many cases in which an information or indictment drawn in the language of the statute is good, but there are also many other cases in which this is not true. Hence it is a general rule, and the statutory rule in this state, that the particular circumstances of the offense, and the acts constituting it, must be charged, when they are necessary to constitute a complete offense, or to inform the court, or person charged, as to what is intended.
The gist of this offense is not that a woman is in a house of prostitution, but that she has been procured or induced by some of the means named in the statute to enter or remain in a house of prostitution. Hence a state of facts must be pleaded that will show that the person charged did in reality, by some one or more of the means named in the statute, procure or induce the female to enter or remain in such house. There might be a promise made to a female which would be so insignificant and trivial that it would appear upon its very face that it was not the inducement or procuring cause of her entering or remaining in such house of prostitution, but that she, in fact, entered or remained in such house of prostitution of her own volition, and not by reason of such trifling and trivial promise, which the court could see at once was too insignificant to influence the conduct of any human being.
Besides since every person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty, it logically follows that he must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial