Anderson v. State

• Citation: 145 N.E. 311,195 Ind. 329
• Decision Date: 07 November 1924
• Docket Number: No. 24462.,24462.
• Parties: ANDERSON v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

195 Ind. 329

145 N.E. 311

ANDERSON

v.STATE.

No. 24462.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 7, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Delaware County; L. A. Guthrie, Special Judge.

Oscar Anderson was convicted of pandering, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. A. McClellan, John McPhee, and Claude C. Ball, all of Muncie, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh and O. S. Boling, both of Indianapolis, for the State.

GAUSE, J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit in three counts with the crime of pandering, as defined by section 2356a, Burns' 1914. He filed a motion to quash the affidavit, as a whole, on the grounds that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, and that the offense is not stated with sufficient certainty. He filed a motion for a continuance, which was overruled, and, upon a plea of not guilty, he was tried by a jury and found guilty, “as charged in the affidavit.” He then filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which attacked the sufficiency of the affidavit as a whole. After filing his motion in arrest of judgment, he filed his motion for a new trial. Each of these motions were overruled. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict, fining appellant in the sum of $300, and sentencing him to the state prison for not less than 2 nor more than 10 years.

Appellant assigns as error the following:

“(1) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the amended affidavit herein.

(2) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a continuance.

(3) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.

(4) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion in arrest of judgment.”

We will first notice the first and fourth assignments of error, which bring in question the sufficiency of the affidavit.

[1] As before stated, the affidavit was in three counts, and neither the motion to quash nor the motion in arrest challenged each count separately, but both motions were directed to the affidavit as a whole. Therefore, if either count is sufficient, no error was committed in overruling such motions.

[2][3] Said affidavit, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:

“Minnie L. Snyder, for her amended affidavit herein, swears she is informed and believes that Oscar Anderson, on or about the 11th day of December, 1922, at and in the county of Delaware, state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously procure one G- M-, a female, for an inmate of a house of prostitution then and there kept by him, the said Oscar Anderson.

Count 2.

And affiant aforesaid, on her oath aforesaid, for a second count of affidavit herein, swears that she is informed and believes that Oscar Anderson, on or about the 11th day of December, 1922, at and in the county of Delaware, state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously, by certain promises, threats, violence, devices, and schemes, induce, persuade, and encourage one G- M-, a female person to become an inmate of a house of ill fame then and there kept by him, the said Oscar Anderson.

Count 3.

And affiant aforesaid, on her oath aforesaid, for a third count of affidavit herein, says that she is informed and beleives that Oscar Anderson, on or about the 11th day of December, 1922, at and in the county of Delaware, state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously, by certain promises, threats, schemes, and devices, cause, induce, persuade, and encourage one G-M-, who was then and there an inmate of a house of prostitution then and there kept by him, the said Oscar Anderson, to be and remain in said house of prostitution for the purpose...