Hall v. United States., 125.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1943
• Docket Number: No. 125.,125.
• Citation: 34 A.2d 631
• Parties: HALL v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

34 A.2d 631

HALL

v.UNITED STATES.

No. 125.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Nov. 26, 1943.

Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Criminal Division.

Gussie Hall was convicted of soliciting prostitution, and she appeals.

Affirmed. weight given to the assumption of one of the officers as to what the $5 was to be paid for, and (3) insufficiency of the whole evidence to support the conviction.

1. We have previously held ¹ that a defendant by offering evidence in her own behalf waives her rights under a motion for dismissal, made at the conclusion of government's case.

2. The officer's opinion or assumption as to what consideration the $5 payment would cover was elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination of the officer. Having himself brought about the introduction of the evidence, he cannot complain that it was inadmissible. ² Moreover, he could hardly have expected any other answer, in view of what had already been developed in the trial.

3. Appellant cites us to Williams v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 377, 110 P.2d 554, and relies on that decision as a basis for reversal. The situation in that case was entirely different from the one before us. There the defendant approached a policeman's car, asked him if he wanted a ‘date’, invited herself into the automobile and asked if he wanted to drive and talk. That was held too ambiguous to constitute solicitation of prostitution.

In the case before us there is neither doubt nor ambiguity. In no view can this be regarded as an innocent flirtation. The hour of the night, the provocative position of defendant on the park bench, the physical blandishment, the challenging verbal invitation, the prompt discussion of financial terms, the ready arrangement for a room-all stamp the transaction as unmistakably commercial and defendant's conduct as a clear act of soliciting and a violation of the law.

If there had been any slight remaining doubt as to guilt, we think it was removed when defendant, who had voluntarily taken the stand, made no answer to the critical question above referred to, put to her by the judge. If she had an explanation, that was an excellent time to make it, and contradict her accusers. But she met the opportunity with complete silence. The Supreme Court has pointed out ³ that when an accused takes the stand he ‘may not stop short in his testimony by omitting and familing to explain incriminating circumstances and events...