People v. Gastro

• Decision Date: 07 June 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 937,75 Mich. 127
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GASTRO.

42 N.W. 937

75 Mich. 127

PEOPLE v. GASTRO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 7, 1889

Exceptions from circuit court, Gogebic county; WILLIAMS, Judge.

Helen Gastro excepts from a conviction of keeping a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution. S V. R. Trowbridge, Atty. Gen., and Chas. M Howell, for the People.

CHAMPLIN J.

The respondent was charged with unlawfully keeping and maintaining a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness, contrary to the statute, at the village of Bessemer, Gogebic county. She was convicted, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the Detroit house of correction for 18 months at hard labor. The prosecution called witnesses, and was permitted, against the objections of the attorneys for respondent, to prove the character of the house occupied by her, from what they had heard, for a long space of time. The respondent's attorneys insisted that the proofs should be confined to the day named in the information, but "the court ruled the testimony must show the offense charged was committed on the day laid; but, as bearing upon that question, evidence was admissible, and would be received as to the time within one week of that alleged." There was no error in permitting the testimony as to the ill fame of the house to extend back one week or even longer if the respondent was the keeper of the house during that time. The court rightly held that the proof must show the offense was committed on the day alleged in the information, the elements of the offense being- First, that it was a house of ill fame second, that the respondent kept it; and, third, that it was resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness.

The testimony to establish the fact that the house was resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness consisted of that given by David F. Foley, George Hoyle, and Floyd C. McIntyre, who each testified to the bad reputation of the house, and that they went to her house together in the night-time a few days before her arrest, and found respondent there, and a man by the name of "Martin;" and they were not in bed; that Martin made his home at said respondent's house; that they also found one other woman at respondent's house, who was in bed with a man whom they had known for some length of time as a single man, although they would not swear that he had not married the woman before such night, but they did not think he had done so; that the woman and man got up, and she used some indecent language. Hoyle testified that respondent called said Martin "a pimp," or "her pimp," and also called him and others "pimps." The witness Foley was sheriff, and testified to certain admissions made by the respondent after the arrest, and while she was imprisoned in jail. These were objected to as not having been made voluntarily. In reply to a question from the court, the witness stated that such statement was made without question or suggestion, and was entirely of her own offer. He thereupon testified that respondent stated to him that she kept a whorehouse. The bill of exceptions contains the statement that "the above were all the witnesses sworn on the trial of the cause, and the foregoing is the substance of all the evidence on the part of the prosecution." There was no error in admitting the testimony of the sheriff as to respondent's admissions.

The circuit judge in charging the jury said: "We have some testimony with reference to the language which was used in the house, as to what the character of the inmates were,-whether they were prostitutes or not. We have the testimony of one witness who says that this respondent made the remark that this man, whatever his name is, was her 'pimp.' We all know what that is when we are outdoors, and we should know what it means when we are here, just as well as when we are outdoors. We know, as a matter of fact, that it is a man who has intercourse with a loose woman, and usually she is taking care of him,-supporting him. When she says such a man is her 'pimp,' that is what she means. Well, there is a case of unwarranted sexual intercourse if you believe that to be true. Now, under the testimony we have the girl there; and there is testimony of one or more witnesses tending to show that the respondent, on a certain occasion just after this woman was caught in bed with a man not her husband, made the remark to her that she was a whore. There is some evidence of that kind. Now, language of that kind, made use of by the respondent herself to this woman, would be pretty strong evidence against her that that other woman was a whore, and that she had such a kind of a house there. It is her own statement as to what the character of the woman was; and being her own house, if she had that kind of a woman around there habitually, and they frequented it, (they certainly, according to the evidence, frequented it at one time,) you have a right to consider that as pretty strong evidence as bearing upon the character of the people who come to that house. There is evidence by Mr. Foley, by which he swears that she said she kept a whore-house. Now it is for you to say whether she told him that or not. If you believe that she did tell Mr. Foley that she kept a whore-house, that is very strong evidence in favor of the guilt of this woman. People do not usually admit themselves guilty of crime when they are not guilty. It is more usual to deny it, and they most always do deny it. If a man, charged with crime, admits that he is guilty of it, it is pretty conclusive evidence, and evidence sufficient for you to act upon in finding him guilty. It is evidence at least that I should not fail to act upon if I was on the jury."

The court committed several errors in giving the above instructions. The...