Meadows v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 23 October 1907
• Citation: 104 S.W. 954
• Parties: MEADOWS v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

104 S.W. 954

MEADOWS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 23, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barren County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Bettie Meadows was convicted of creating and maintaining a common nuisance, and she appeals. Reversed, for a new trial.

B. C Ellis and J. Lewis Williams, for appellant.

Harlin & White, for the Commonwealth.

CLAY C.

Appellant Bettie Meadows, was indicted by the grand jury of Barren county for the offense of common nuisance committed in that county on the ______ day of ______, 1907. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the case submitted to the jury which found her guilty, and fixed her punishment at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for 50 days.

The first error assigned is that the indictment is fatally defective. That portion of the indictment necessary to consider is as follows: "The said Bettie Meadows did then and there unlawfully foster, create, and maintain a common nuisance, by wantonly, wickedly, and openly permitting male persons at divers times and different occasions to assemble and congregate at her house, a house under her control, for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her," etc. This allegation is too uncertain and indefinite. Appellant might have several houses, in which event she could not tell which house was meant by the expression, "her house, a house under her control." She might prepare her case with reference to one house, and bring numerous witnesses living in that neighborhood to meet the charge of the commonwealth, and then find that all her preparation was to no purpose, as the commonwealth intended a house entirely different from the one that she had in mind. To be prepared, then, for such an emergency, she would have to attend trial with sufficient number of witnesses to defend as to any and all houses belonging to her or under her control. The law does not place any such burden upon the defendant. An indictment in such a case should make it reasonably certain what house is intended. Where the indictment does not locate the house, either by street or town, it cannot be said to meet this requirement. We are therefore of the opinion that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's demurrer to the indictment.

There are other questions raised on this appeal which we deem necessary to decide. The commonwealth introduced the county judge of Barren county, who, over the objection of appellant was permitted to testify that appellant had pleaded guilty to a similar charge in his court on the 21st day of November 1906. He then read the...