People v. Cook
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Writing for the Court | LONG, J. |
| Citation | 96 Mich. 368,55 N.W. 980 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. COOK. |
| Decision Date | 25 July 1893 |
55 N.W. 980
96 Mich. 368
PEOPLE
v.
COOK.
Supreme Court of Michigan
July 25, 1893
Error to superior court of Grand Rapids; Edwin A. Burlingame, Judge.
Margaret C. Cook was convicted of soliciting certain females to enter a house of ill fame resorted to for the purpose of prostitution, for the purpose of becoming prostitutes, and she brings error. Reversed.
Maher & Salsbury, for appellant.
A. A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and Alfred Wolcott, Pros. Atty., for the People.
LONG, J.
Respondent was convicted in the superior court of Grand Rapids, under an information charging that she did solicit and induce Emma Hachn and Lillie Pale, females, to enter a house of ill fame, situate at Woodside, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness, for the purpose of becoming prostitutes. [96 Mich. 369] It appeared that at the term of court at which the respondent was tried, and before her trial came on, one Frank Smith had been prosecuted and convicted under an information charging that he did solicit and induce one Anna Nelson, a female, to enter a house of ill fame in the city of Grand Rapids, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness, for the purpose of becoming a prostitute; and that Lillie Pale-named in the information against respondent-was a witness against said Frank Smith; and also that said Anna Nelson was to be used as a witness against the respondent, her name being indorsed on the information for that purpose. The same panel of jurors remained during the term of court, and several of them who served on the panel in the case against Frank Smith were called in the case against the respondent. Counsel for respondent examined these jurors on voir dire. They were asked if they served as jurors in the case of People vs. Frank Smith, and heard Lillie Pale testify. This was answered in the affirmative. Counsel then asked: "Did you, from the evidence in that case, form any opinion as to her character for virtue and chastity?" The answer, under objection from the prosecution, was excluded. Five jurors who sat in the case of Smith remained on the panel in the present case. Lillie Pale was called as a witness for the prosecution, and testified substantially that on Sunday, December 12, 1892, the respondent asked her to go to Woodville, into a house of prostitution, to become a prostitute. On the next day she saw the respondent again, who gave her 50 cents to pay her fare and that of Anna Nelson on the train to go there, the respondent at the same time telling her that other girls were going, and to go to the depot, but not to recognize her there. The witness also testified that before that time she had had illicit intercourse with a man for [96 Mich. 370] pay. This was only a few days before the respondent solicited her to go to Woodville. The testimony tended to show that the house to which the respondent solicited these girls to go was a new one, but the witness Lillie Pale testified that the respondent said it was a sporting house. The statute under which the prosecution was had reads: "Every person who shall keep a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness, and every person who shall solicit or in any manner induce a female to enter such house for the purpose of becoming a prostitute, or shall by force, fraud, deceit, or in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morey, Docket No. 112623, Calendar No. 3.
...persuade, encourage, inveigle or entice a female person to become a prostitute...." The Court of Appeals, relying on People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 370, 55 N.W. 980 (1893), concluded that this section of the statute was created to penalize individuals who induce 603 N.W.2d 253 females who ha......
-
People v. Rocha, Docket No. 47419
...Id., 425, 107 Cal.Rptr. 256. See also State v. Gates, 118 Utah 182, 221 P.2d 878 (1950). We do not believe that People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 55 N.W. 980 (1893), requires a contrary result. The Cook decision construed a previous incarnation of the statute and concluded that a person could n......
-
Alexander v. Riccinto, 115919
...to the issue of governmental immunity in this case, the question is one of law, and we review such questions de novo. People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 55 N.W. 980 (1893). Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that summary disposition in defendant Riccinto's favor should be......
-
State v. Gates, 7474
...of this contention appellant cites State v. Topham, 41 Utah 39, 123 P. 888; State v. Mantis, 32 Idaho 724, 187 P. 268; People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 55 N.W. 980; and Jefferson v. State, 21 Okl.Cr. 388, 208 P. In the Topham case this court set aside the conviction because the information upo......
-
People v. Morey, Docket No. 112623, Calendar No. 3.
...persuade, encourage, inveigle or entice a female person to become a prostitute...." The Court of Appeals, relying on People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 370, 55 N.W. 980 (1893), concluded that this section of the statute was created to penalize individuals who induce 603 N.W.2d 253 females w......
-
People v. Rocha, Docket No. 47419
...Id., 425, 107 Cal.Rptr. 256. See also State v. Gates, 118 Utah 182, 221 P.2d 878 (1950). We do not believe that People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 55 N.W. 980 (1893), requires a contrary result. The Cook decision construed a previous incarnation of the statute and concluded that a person could n......
-
Alexander v. Riccinto, No. 115919
...to the issue of governmental immunity in this case, the question is one of law, and we review such questions de novo. People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 55 N.W. 980 (1893). Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that summary disposition in defendant Riccinto's favor should be......
-
State v. Gates, No. 7474
...of this contention appellant cites State v. Topham, 41 Utah 39, 123 P. 888; State v. Mantis, 32 Idaho 724, 187 P. 268; People v. Cook, 96 Mich. 368, 55 N.W. 980; and Jefferson v. State, 21 Okl.Cr. 388, 208 P. In the Topham case this court set aside the conviction because the information upo......