Lutes v. Commonwealth

• Citation: 236 Ky. 549
• Parties: Lutes v. Commonwealth.
• Decision Date: 16 December 1930
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

236 Ky. 549

Lutes v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided December 16, 1930.

Prostitution. — Evidence failing to show that defendant "procured" prosecutrix for illicit relations with another held insufficient to discolse offense of pandering (Ky. Stats., sec. 1215b-1).

There was no evidence that defendant's persuasions, inducements, or suggestions were efficient or moving cause that resulted in prosecutrix's accompanying another to different state, where they lived together for several months. The word "procure," when used as in Ky. Stats., sec. 1215-1, which provides that one who shall for a consideration procure for another a person for purpose of illicit sexual intercourse shall be guilty of pandering, ordinarily means to bring about,

effect, cause, and may be used as synonymous with abet, aid, find, or introduce.

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court.

ROSE & STAMPER, C.E. TYREE and J.F. SUTTON for appellant.

J.W. CAMMACK, Attorney General, and HOWARD BLACK for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE LOGAN

Reversing.

At its regular session in 1916 the General Assembly of Kentucky enacted chapter 49 of the Acts of that session, which chapter has passed into the Ky. Stats., and appears as sections 1215b-1 to 1215b-3. The subject dealt with is commercialized vice in relation to prostitution. The section defining the offense of pandering is the first one mentioned above, and it is divided into a number of paragraphs or clauses each defining particular acts which amount to pandering. The major portion of the section deals with procuring a female for a house of prostitution, and in one phase or another the definition includes a person who procures a female for that purpose, or one who induces, persuades, or encourages a female to either become or remain an inmate of such a house, or one who aids, encourages, or assists in bringing a female from another state into this state for the purposes of prostitution. The section deals with commercialized vice in connection with houses of prostitution and the acts of persons in obtaining women for such places until the close of the section, or what may be called the last definition of pandering. That is included under the designation "(g)" which is to the effect that one who shall procure for another a person for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse, and shall directly or indirectly receive therefor a consideration, shall be guilty of pandering.

Millard Lutes, the appellant, lived near the family of Callie Stamper, the chief prosecuting witness, in Lee county. Custer Cornett lived in the same neighborhood. Other persons who took part in the incidents on which this prosecution was based resided in the neighborhood. Lutes was a married man residing with his wife. Cornett presumably was married, as he resided with a woman accepted as his wife, and they had one child. Callie Stamper resided at the home of her parents and was one of several children.

On a day Callie Stamper testified that she saw the appellant on the road leading from her home to a store and he inquired of her "if she was going." When this conversation took place between them, according to her testimony, he said to her, "Are you going?" She replied "What do you mean by going?" He responded "You needn't care to tell me Custer has already got me to take you all off." She retorted, "I don't know what you mean. I am not going." He responded "If I was you I would go." She inquired, "Why is that Millard?" And he answered, "Your father and mother is meaner to you than they are any of the rest of the children and if you go with him you will have anything you want pretty to wear and be treated well." She said, "But why I can't get away from home." His answer to that was: "Tell them you are going to the store and if I don't meet you at the falls, Custer or somebody else will."

This conversation on the road, according to her evidence, occurred a few days before she took her flight with Custer Cornett. She testified that on the Sunday following the conversation she went to the home of appellant to borrow some household necessities in connection with her preparing a meal when he said to her, "Be ready."

A day or two later a brother and a friend or two of Custer Cornett went with him to a point on the river, and his brother appears to have gone to the home of Callie Stamper, or in some way notified her that Cornett was waiting at the river side. They went down the river some miles in a boat, Custer and his friends occupying a boat with the girl and having with them at least one shotgun and probably one or more pistols. Arriving at a point on the river nearest to Cable schoolhouse, they disembarked and one of the party climbed the hill to reconnoiter, and, upon a report that the way was open, those at the river proceeded on their way. Near the Cable schoolhouse appellant and his wife were in an automobile owned by appellant and used by him from time to time to haul passengers for hire. When Custer and Callie arrived at the automobile they climbed into the back seat. Custer gave appellant a pint of whisky and requested him to drive. The first stop, except to stop now and then to obtain gasoline, was made at Winchester, where appellant and his wife, with money furnished by Custer Cornett, purchased a...