Price v. United States, 2024.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 2024.,2024. |
| Citation | 135 A.2d 854 |
| Parties | Blanche PRICE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Willis C. Payton, Washington, D. C., with whom Roy Garvin, Washington, D. C., was. on the brief, for appellant.
Milton Eisenberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and William A. Dougherty, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, HOOD, Associate Judge, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code, § 11-776(b).
In a nonjury trial appellant was convicted of soliciting for prostitution1 and sentenced to ninety days in jail. On appeal she alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction; that the trial judge erroneously admitted certain hearsay testimony; and that it was error to permit a reopening of the case after both the Government and defense had rested and final arguments had commenced.
An officer of the Metropolitan Police Department testified that in the early morning of March 17, 1957, while standing on a street corner engaged in conversation with a sailor, appellant and a female companion walked by, closely followed by four sailors and a man in civilian clothes. As appellant passed she winked at the sailor who was conversing with the officer, and he in turn inquired of one of those in the group following appellant where they were going. The reply, which was in tile parlance of streetwalkers and their associates and which need not be repeated here, was to the effect that they were going with the girls, who had offered themselves for a price. The officer and his sailor associate followed the group to an address on Eye Street. As he walked up the steps appellant asked him who he was, and when he stated that he was with the sailors she invited him inside. Once inside, appellant offered "to take him on" for ten dollars; he handed her two five dollar bills and then identified himself and placed her under arrest.
After this testimony, the Government rested its case. Appellant did not take the stand, nor did any witness testify on her behalf. During closing argument the question was raised why the Government failed to produce witnesses who were supposedly Available. Over objection, the officer was recalled to the stand and testified that the one sailor who had heard the solicitation had told him on the morning of the incident that he "was in off a ship from Virginia"; the inference intended to be drawn from this being, of course, that the sailor was -unavailable at the time of trial. Thereafter, appellant's counsel and the prosecutor again began arguing the case to the trial judge. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the requirement of corroboration in a case of this nature, and the trial judge continued the case for further consideration of this point.
When the case came on for further hearing, the prosecutor, although still maintaining that corroboration was not required in A case of solicitation for prostitution, informed the trial judge that he had available a corroborating witness, and over objection this witness was permitted to take the stand. He testified that he was an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department; that on the morning of the alleged offense he answered "a run" at the Eye Street address; that when he entered the premises he saw three men and a girl coming down the stairs; and that appellant was in the bedroom with the first officer, who at the time had her under arrest. After additional argument and another continuance, the trial judge found appellant guilty and imposed sentence.
Initially, appellant argues that on the evidence it was impossible for the trial court to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graves v. United States
...797 (D.C.1961) (appellant told officer she "would do anything . . . and make it worth his while" in return for $20); Price v. United States, 135 A.2d 854, 855 (D.C.1957) (direct solicitation and money changed hands); Curran, 52 A.2d at 122; Hall v. United States, 34 A.2d 631, 632 (D.C.1943)......
-
Ford v. U.S., 83-1105.
...(D.C. 1975); Wajer v. United States, 222 A.2d 68 (D.C. 1966); Goqen v. United States, 167 A.2d 796, 797 (D.C.I961); Price v. United States, 135 A.2d 854, 855 (D.C. 1957); Curran v. United States, 52 A.2d 121, 122 (D.C. 1947); Hall v. United States, 34 A.2d 631, 632 (D.C. 1943); see also Uni......
-
United States v. Wiley
...the law's unequal treatment of women.") 40 Cf. Kelly v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D. C. 125, 194 F.2d 150 (1952) and Price v. United States, 135 A.2d 854 (D.C.Ct.App. 1957). 41 David L. Bazelon, "Justice Stumbles Over Science," Transaction (July/August 1967) 8, 42 Bailey v. United States, 1......
-
Harris v. United States
...Wajer v. United States, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 68 (1966); Golden v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 167 A.2d 796 (1961); Price v. United States, D.C.Mun. App., 135 A.2d 854 (1957); Sellers v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 300 (1957); Hawkins v. United States, D.C. Mun.App., 105 A.2d 250 (1......