Mcmillan v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 22 November 1948
• Citation: 50 S.E.2d 428,188 Va. 429
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: McMillan . v. Commonwealth.

50 S.E.2d 428

188 Va. 429

McMillan .

v.Commonwealth.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 22, 1948.

Error from Corporation Court of Bristol; Jos. L. Cantwell, Jr., Judge.

Christopher Columbus McMillan was convicted of pandering, and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Before HUDGINS, C. J., and GREGORY, EGGLESTON, SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, STAPLES and MILLER.

George M. Warren, of Bristol, for plaintiff in error.

J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Henry T. Wickham, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

HUDGINS, Chief Justice.

Christopher Columbus McMillan was convicted of pandering and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for 18 months.

His assignments of error are, (1) refusal of the court to set aside the verdict on the ground that it is not supported by competent evidence; (2) the admission, over his objection, of statements and acts of his wife tending to show his guilt; and (3) the refusal of the court to sustain his objection to improper argument of the attorney for the Commonwealth to the jury.

No part of the argument of the attorney (for the Commonwealth was made a part of the record, hence there is nothing before us to consider on the third assignment of error.

Arna Gay Martin, a girl 15 years of age, testified that she ran away from her home in Rossmore, West Virginia, spending a few days in Lexington and a week or more in Roanoke, Virginia. She came to Bristol sometime in October. On October 28th, around 10 p. m. she met "Albert" on the street and told him that she desired to make dates with men. He took her to the Virginia Annex Hotel. As they went through the lobby, Albert, an employee of the hotel, talked to the manager, and then, without requiring her to register, he took her to room No. 108. Soon thereafter the accused, another Negro employee of the hotel, whom she had never seen before, took her from her room to room No. 205. He took her to different rooms to fill five other engagements. She had intercourse six times with five different men who paid her $30.00, $12.00 of which she gave to the accused; that is, she gave the accused $2.00 out of every $5.00 she collected. She left this hotel about 5 a. m. registered at another hotel where she slept until 3 p. m. About 7:30 p.m. she returned to the Virginia Annex Hotel when Albert assigned her to another room. She stayed there until 11:30 p.m. but made no other engage ments. A few days thereafter she was arrested and told to stay at the YWCA until date of trial.

The accused testified that on October 28, at 11:00 p. m. he reported for duty at the hotel and immediately answered a call from room No. 110 where he found Miss Martin who told him that a friend of hers was registered in room No. 205 with two other men and asked him to let her know when they came in. Shortly thereafter he saw the men go to their room. He notified the girl of that fact. Later he answered a call from the room, saw the girl sitting on the bed. One of the men gave him $5.00 to bring them sandwiches and ice. When he delivered the sandwiches and ice, which cost 750, he was told to keep the change, which he did. Later he saw the girl in the hall and told her she had better be careful how she walked around, the clerk might see her. She told him she was going in the bath room. This was the extent of his dealings with her. He never saw her again or said anything else to her. He denied receiving any money from her or making any engagements for her.

While the testimony is in sharp conflict, it is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

The second assignment of error is based on the following statements of Miss Martin: "The porter's wife (meaning the wife of the accused) told me to go home, " and "his wife bought me a ticket to Logan, West Virginia."

While the attorney for the accused objected to both statements he did not state his ground of objection to either statement. Under these circumstances, we cannot consider the ruling of the court on the admissibility of the evidence. Rule 22 provides: "In civil and criminal cases, all objections to writs of every kind, pleadings, instructions, notices, the admissibility of evidence, or other matters requiring a ruling or judgment of the trial court, shall state with reasonable certainty the ground of objection, and, unless it appears from the record to have been so stated, such objections will not be considered by this court except for good cause shown, or toenable this court to attain the ends of justice." Even if we could consider this objection, we would have to hold the admission of this evidence harmless error, because the accused himself introduced evidence of a similar nature.

Miss Martin, on cross-examination, stated that while she was staying at the YWCA the wife of the accused came to see her and that the wife, Everett Combs, Margaret Houston, and the father of the accused, took her in an automobile owned by the wife and driven by Everett Combs from Bristol to Johnson City, Tennessee, for the purpose of getting her out of the jurisdiction of the court so that she could not be compelled to attend the trial and testify against the accused.

The fact that the wife told Miss Martin to go home, and her act in buying the ticket to Logan, West Virginia are simply corroborative of other evidence elicited by the accused himself tending to prove that his friends sought to get the witness to leave the jurisdiction of the court. Under these circumstances, the admission of the improper testimony became harmless error.

Evidence that a person charged with a...