Schultz v. State

• Citation: 200 Ind. 1,161 N.E. 5
• Decision Date: 18 April 1928
• Docket Number: No. 24883.,24883.
• Parties: SCHULTZ v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

200 Ind. 1

161 N.E. 5

SCHULTZ

v.STATE.

No. 24883.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 18, 1928.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Lake County; Martin J. Smith, Judge.

Pauline Schultz was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame, and she appeals. Affirmed.

James W. Burns, of Gary, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and George J. Muller, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

MYERS, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Lake criminal court of keeping a “house of ill fame” (section 2562, Burns' 1926), and judgment followed. Appellant's motion for a new trial specifying causes—verdict contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence, the admission of certain testimony over appellant's objection, and the court's refusal to strike it out—was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error.

Our conclusion, after having carefully examined the record and briefs of counsel for appellant, is that the verdict is contrary to law only in case it is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

[1] On the evidence appellant makes the point that it fails to show that appellant kept a house, and that it was “resorted to for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness.” First noticing the questions and admitted answers over objection, and motions to strike out on the ground of a conversation had without the presence of appellant, it is sufficient to say that the statements of the girls as to price, that they were examined each week by a doctor, and on a particular evening “they had a few more (girls) working,” considered in connection with all the circumstances present, and the conversation certain witnesses claimed to have had with appellant on the same evening on the same subjects, corroborative of the girls, except no mention of price was admissible. 18 C. J. 1269, § 98.

[2] Over objection because not in issue, the state was permitted to show by two witnesses that the general reputation of the appellant for chastity and virtue was bad. On the question of the admission of such evidence, the decisions of the courts of last resort in the various jurisdictions of this country are in direct conflict. State v. Hull, 18 R. I. 207, 26 A. 191, 20 L. R. A. 609, and note; 9 R. C. L. 226, § 11; 18 C. J. 1268, § 97. This jurisdiction, however, seems to have adopted the Wisconsin and South Carolina rule (State v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435; State v. McDowell, Dud. [S. C.] 346), permitting the state to make such proof as a part of its original case. Betts v. State, 93 Ind. 375, 378;Whitlock v. State, 4 Ind. App. 432, 30 N. E. 934. See, also, Sparks v. State, 59 Ala. 82;State v. Hendricks, 15 Mont. 194, 39 P. 93, 48 Am. St. Rep. 666; 18 C. J. 1268, § 97.

[3][4] Secondly, looking to the evidence before the jury most favorable to the state, as we must do, we have witnesses, one claiming to be an investigator for the United States Public Health Service, and another who said he was engaged in the cleaning and dyeing business, both of Hammond, Ind., testifying that they had made a number of visits between February 21 and June 16, 1924, to No. 1121 Washington street, in Gary, Ind., which number had...