Peabody v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1894 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MAMIE PEABODY v. THE STATE |
October 1894
FROM the circuit court of Warren county, HON. JOHN D. GILLAND Judge.
Appellants Mamie Peabody, Belle Johnson and Tinie Walker, were arraigned before a justice of the peace under § 1322, code 1892 on an affidavit charging them with vagrancy in being "common prostitutes, without other means of support or employment." Being convicted, they were taxed with costs, and each required to enter into bond in the sum of $ 250 for good behavior. On appeal to the circuit court, they were again convicted.
The evidence for the state was to the effect that the defendants resided on one of the public streets of Vicksburg; that they did no work and had no property, and were never known to have money except on occasion of paying house rent; that they were in the habit of idling their time away during the day, and of dressing up in the evening and sitting on the front steps of the house, or strolling on the street; that, with fair speech, they would solicit men, who would go into the house with them, when the doors were closed; that white men had been seen in the house with them; that they were seen on the street day and night doing nothing. There was no direct evidence of guilt. The witnesses knew of no acts of sexual intercourse; one of the defendants, on one occasion, was seen in bed with a white man. It was not known that either of the defendants had ever received money from men for immoral purposes.
The defendants introduced no evidence, but, on conclusion of the state's testimony, moved the court to instruct in their favor, on the ground that the evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. This was refused, and the defendants excepted.
Thereupon the court instructed for the state that if the jury believed, from all the evidence, that the defendants were common prostitutes, without other employment for their support, they should be convicted. A number of instructions were given for defendants. These were to the effect that it was incumbent on the state to prove every material allegation beyond a reasonable doubt; that no suspicions of guilt, however strong, were sufficient to convict; that a prostitute is a woman given to indiscriminate lewdness for gain, and that the jury could not convict unless the state had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants held themselves out and were ready to have sexual intercourse with such men as applied, and that they received pay for such intercourse, and had no other employment whatever for their services; that, though a woman might permit one, two or three male friends to have sexual intercourse with her for their mutual pleasure, or even for a gainful consideration, this would not constitute her a common prostitute, but that the state, in order to convict, must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did have indiscriminate sexual intercourse with men generally, received pay for the same and had no other means of support; that the law requires the same degree of strictness of proof in this case as in a charge of murder.
Defendants being convicted, a motion for a new trial was overruled, and this appeal was prosecuted.
Affirmed.
Marshall & Vollor, for appellants.
The verdict, being clearly against the evidence, should be set aside. James v. State, 45 Miss. 572; 69 Ib., 811; Monroe v. State, 71 Ib., 196.
A common prostitute is a woman given to indiscriminate lewdness for gain. 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 291; 16 Texas, 593. In this state there must be the additional element that the prostitute has no other employment as a means of support.
Lewdness with one man does not constitute the crime. 19 Am. & Eng. Enc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Flynn
...to sustain a conviction. State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741, 45 N. W. 300;State v. Porter, 130 Iowa, 690, 107 N. W. 923;Peabody v. State, 72 Miss. 104, 17 South. 213;Graeter v. State, 105 Ind. 271, 4 N. E. 461-464. Ordinarily witnesses cannot be found who will publish their own shame by giving e......
-
McDonald v. State
... ... this case on the record ... H ... Cassidy Holden, assistant attorney-general, for the state ... The ... appellant argues but one assignment of error, viz.; that the ... evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. But the ... court is referred to Peabody v. State, 72 Miss. 104, ... 17 So. 213, wherein it was held that under the Code of 1892, ... section 1322, making keepers of houses of prostitution and ... common prostitutes punishable as vagrants where it was shown ... that defendants, charged with being common prostitutes, had ... no other ... ...
-
State v. Flynn
... ... was also for the jury. It may be true that no witness ... testifies to acts of illicit carnal intercourse there, but ... such evidence is not indispensable to sustain a conviction ... State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa 741, 45 N.W. 300; State ... v. Porter, 130 Iowa 690, 107 N.W. 923; Peabody v ... State, 72 Miss. 104, 17 So. 213; Graeter v ... State (Ind.), 105 Ind. 271, 4 N.E. 461. Ordinarily, ... witnesses cannot be found who will publish their own shame by ... giving evidence of their participation in such acts; while ... the very nature of such association implies so much of ... ...
- Harris v. State