Noel v. State, 30765

Decision Date14 April 1966
Docket NumberNo. 30765,30765
PartiesNelson NOEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Thomas W. Munger, Lafayette, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Douglas B. McFadden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

The defendant-appellant was convicted of enticing a female into an immoral place. The evidence shows that the defendant, 43 years of age, owned a 1951 Chevrolet school bus with a cot or bed therein; that in August, 1964 the prosecuting witness, of the age of 17, was approached by the defendant to engage in prostitution in the bus; that he had arrangements with other girls for the same purpose and that one of them had become pregnant and that he was looking for a replacement.

The evidence further shows that he asked one of the girls for the name of some other girls and he, in his school bus with one of the girls, went to see the prosecuting witness and at the time offered her a job as a prostitute on his bus, goving her the details of her work and the price she was to charge. He asked her also if she knew of any other girls he could get to work for him.

The prosecuting witness at the time was on parole from the Girls School. We may draw from the evidence that she informed her parole officer of the solicitation and that she shortly thereafter informed the defendant that she would work for him. A specific night was fixed for them to meet the defendant with his bus at Bald Knob for her to perform her work. When the girls met the defendant with his bus at that location, the police were there and arrested the defendant.

Errors complained of in the trial court are first, that the court erred in overruling the motion to quash. The memorandum thereto specified that the indictment was vague and indefinite because of the expression therein 'to prostitute herself'. We are not impressed with this contention, since common usage of the word 'prostitute' involves sexual intercourse, although it may have a less immoral meaning in some rather uncommon usage. Merriam-Webster New Insternational Dictionary (3rd ed. 1961) defines the verb prositute as follows:

'1. to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse esp. for payment. * * *

'2. to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes or ends. * * *'

The context in which the words in the indictment is used reveals clearly, and in our opinion, definitely its meaning. The indictment reads in part that the defendant did entice the prosecuting witness, a female person, 'for vicious and immoral purposes, to-wit: for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with said girl and for the purpose of causing, aiding and encouraging said girl to prostitute herself * * *.' The affidavit clearly states in direct and unmistakable terms the nature and character of the charge against the defendant with certainty to a common intent. Kraft v. State (1930), 202 Ind. 44, 171 N.E. 1; Smith v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 217, 156 N.E. 513.

It is next complained that the court erred in excluding the juvenile court record of the prosecuting witness. We find no error in such ruling of the court, since Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 9--3215 (1965 Supp.) provides that no child shall 'be deemed a criminal by reason of such adjudication, nor shall such adjudication be deemed a coviction, * * *' Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 9--3114 (1956 Repl.) further provides that 'Such records shall be open only by order of the court to persons having a legitimate interest. * * *'

The purpose of the statute is to protect juveniles against such proceedings brought for their benefit, and it may not be used for the purposes of impeachment. Woodley v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 407, 86 N.E.2d 529.

Next, error is complained of in the giving of instruction number 9 by the court. This instruction reads as follows:

'While it is necessary that every essential element of the crime charged against the accused should be proved by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, this does not mean that all the incidental or subsiduary (sic) facts should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence is not to be considered in fragmentary parts, and as though each fact or circumstance stood apart from the others, but the entire evidence is to be considered. The weight of the testimony to be determined from the other evidence may be weak, if not impossible, but when viewed in connection with surrounding facts and circumstances, it may be so well supported as to remove all doubts as to its existence, as detailed by the witness. Acts when considered apart from all other evidence may appear innocent, but when considered with other evidence may import guilt.' (Our italics.)

The defendant's objection to this instruction was that the sentence beginning with the words '* * * The weight' and ending with the word 'witness' is without meaning and confusing. It appears to us that what has happened through some typographical error is that the word 'impossible' has been used instead of the word 'improbable', but we do not feel that such a slight irregularity creates any confusion, to the prejudice of either of the parties in this cause. The trial judge in substance told the jury that they should not become engrossed with minor points, but should view the evidence as a whole. It is unrealistic to impose upon a court absolute perfection in the use of language or grammar. Instructing a jury is most difficult and complex, without indulging in super-refinements which have no substantial effect upon the ordinary and common meaning to be drawn from the instruction. Words at the best are imperfect means of precise communication. Their meaning will vary with the time, the place or the environment under which they are uttered. We do not believe the average layman or juryman could have been misled by this instruction. The instruction as a whole is one which an ordinary person can understand. Wilkoff v. State (1933), 206 Ind. 142, 185 N.E. 642; Males v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 196, 156 N.E. 403.

The appellant further contends that the court committed error in this case in refusing to give his tendered instruction number 13. This instruction told the jury that if they found that the prosecuting witness was committed to the Indiana Girls School, even though she was on parole, the defendant could not be convicted under Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 10--4210 (1956 Repl.), the act under which he was charged. The court did not err in refusing to give this instruction, since it was mandatory in form and for the reason that Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 10--4210 (1956 Repl.) under which the criminal charge was brought, is broader in scope than Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 10--4215 (1956 Repl.). The latter statute makes unlawful the solicitation of girls committed to the Indiana Girls School for prostitution in 'a house or lodging place' and like structures. On the other hand, Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 10--4210 (1956 Repl.) includes not only houses and like structures but also 'any other place for vicious or immoral purposes; * * *'

There is some contention made that the bus in this case was not 'a house of prostitution.' However, the memorandum to quash the affidavit does not specify or raise such point therein. The affidavit does specifically allege a '1951 Chevrolet bus' as the place. No alleged error was therefore saved on such contention for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Page
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1968
    ...61 Wash.2d 107, 377 P.2d 248; State v. Kelly, 249 Iowa 1219, 91 N.W.2d 562; Anderson v. State, 207 Tenn. 486, 341 S.W.2d 385; Noel v. State, Ind., 215 N.E.2d 539. ...
  • Shelby Nat. Bank v. Miller
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 15, 1970
    ...at exactitude, and we must keep this human frailty in mind when we examine the language of instructions. Noel v. State (1966), (247) Ind. (426), 215 N.E.2d 539, at p. 542; White v. Evansville American Legion Home Ass'n (1965), (247) Ind. (69), 210 N.E.2d 845; Woods v. State (1957), 236 Ind.......
  • Blackburn v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1973
    ...Ind.Stat.Ann. § 9--1126 (1956 Repl.)); Thomas v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 76, 238 N.E.2d 20; rehearing denied; See also Noel v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 426, 215 N.E.2d 539 rehearing denied. The defendant must be given sufficient information to enable him to prepare his defense and to assure th......
  • State v. White
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1968
    ...a decision recognizing that ordinarily a defendant is not entitled to an inspection of a statement of a prosecution witness. Noel v. State, Ind., 215 N.E.2d 539, certiorari denied, 385 U.S. 934, 87 S.Ct. 294, 17 L.Ed.2d In looking at other jurisdictions, we find them almost equally divided ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT