State v. Christy

• Decision Date: 11 December 1924
• Docket Number: 36384
• Citation: 201 N.W. 42,198 Iowa 1302
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. EDITH CHRISTY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

201 N.W. 42

198 Iowa 1302

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. EDITH CHRISTY, Appellant

No. 36384

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 11, 1924

Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.--JAMES D. COONEY, Judge.

THE defendant was indicted and tried on the charge of keeping a house of ill fame, in the city of Decorah, Iowa.There was a verdict of guilty, and sentence rendered thereon, and the defendant has appealed.

Reversed.

E. R Acres, for appellant.

Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, and J. A. Nelson, for appellee.

EVANSJ. ARTHUR, C. J., and PRESTON and FAVILLE, JJ., concur.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

The house which was charged to be one of ill fame was a two-story brick house, on the west side of the river in the city of Decorah.The lower story thereof was occupied as a grocery store.The second story thereof was fitted up as a residence apartment or flat, and was rented as such to one William Larson.Larson moved into it with his family, consisting of his wife and two small children.The defendant was a graduate nurse, and was employed in a hospital in the city.In this house, the wife of Larson became ill, and died as a result of such illness.The defendant attended her as nurse, up to the time of her death.After the death of the wife, this defendant continued to devote at least a part of her time to the care of this household, and she lodged and boarded there.The indictment herein was found in February, 1924.The evidence of the State is directed to a showing that this place was kept as a house of ill fame during the three months next preceding.William Larson was likewise charged, and later convicted, under a separate indictment for the same offense.That is to say, he was charged with the keeping of this house as a house of ill fame.The State introduced evidence of the bad reputation of Larson and of the house.It also introduced evidence of a particular occasion in December, 1923, when a so-called "booze party" was held in this house, and was attended by persons of bad reputation.Two of these persons were Fleckenstein and Holm, two college students, attending a local college.They were witnesses for the State.Another person present was Nellie Van Gorder, hotel waitress and a witness for the State.At this party, intoxicating liquor was imbibed freely.Late in the evening, the entire party purported to leave the rooms and to go to that part of the town on the east side of the river.Four of them, however, stealthily remained after the others had gone.These four were Fleckenstein and Holm, Nellie Van Gorder, and a girl companion.These three named witnesses testified to immoralities committed by them in this apartment during the absence of the rest of the party.The evidence at this point is damaging to the character for virtue of all concerned, and is quite unprintable.We state only sufficient thereof to show the bearing of certain examination of witnesses upon which grounds of reversal are laid.The issue tried under the indictment was whether the defendant, Edith Christy, was a keeper of this house, or was she a mere employee of the keeper thereof?

I. Tavener, the city marshal, was a witness for the State.He was one of the officials who had raided this apartment on the night of February 16th, just preceding the indictment.Nothing incriminating was discovered in that raid.The case of the State is predicated upon events that occurred prior thereto.

The State put to this witness the following question:

"Q.Do you know the general reputation of the house occupied by Edith Christy in Decorah between December 1, 1923, and February 16, 1924, as so kept by her?Answer that, yes or no."

Over appropriate objections by the defendant, the court permitted this question to be answered in the affirmative.Over like objections, the court permitted the witness to say that the reputation was bad.The identical question was put to Rima, a police officer, and was likewise permitted, over appropriate objection.He also testified, over like objection, that the reputation was bad.

The identical questions were also put to Christian, the sheriff, and answered, over objection, in like manner.A part of the objection made directed specific reference to the latter part of the interrogatory, "as so kept by her," as being an assumption of the very fact which had to be proved by the State and passed on by the jury.

The objections should have been sustained.The impropriety of the question in this form is palpable, and leaves no room for debate.The error could not be otherwise than prejudicial.Competent evidence in the record on that particular issue is very meager indeed, and the State should not have been permitted to cover up any infirmity in its case by incorporating into its interrogatory such an assumption of fact.

II.Many errors are assigned on the ground that the court erroneously refused proper cross-examination of the State's witnesses.We shall not go into much detail on this question.A careful reading of the record satisfies us that counsel for the defendant was unduly restricted in that regard.One or two illustrations from the record will suffice to indicate the nature of our holding.The following is the record of the cross-examination of the witness Tavener:

"I had a search warrant for intoxicating liquors against Mr Larson, when I went over that night.I couldn't say how many times I have seen Edith Christy prior to the night we went over there.I have seen her going to and from the hospital, and know of her being one of the nurses.I haven't taken more interest in this case than an ordinary officer would do.

"Q.Before there was any kind of a proceeding against Edith Christy, you went to her and told her to come down to the county attorney's office and to the state agent didn't you?(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not proper cross-examination.Objection sustained.Defendant excepts.)Q.Then you went and told her that she had to come down, and you two went down to a room in the Winneshiek Hotel?(Same objection.Objection sustained.Defendant excepts.)Q.And you told her you would have her arrested if she didn't go down with you?(Same objection.Objection sustained.Defendant excepts.)Q.Now, then, after that, you did file a complaint against her, didn't you?A.Yes.And I did go and arrest her.Q.Then you did take her right over to Howard Barthell's office, where you yourself had filed a complaint?(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not cross-examination.Objection sustained.Defendant excepts.)Q.And when the case was called, you happened up, and told her to go, didn't you, when I was there?(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; calling for matters collateral and foreign to matters in issue.Objection sustained.Defendant excepts.)At the time I made the statement about William Larson's general reputation for morality and decency, was not the agent for the International Harvester Company; he had ceased to be sometime in the fall; but I say his general reputation was bad between the 1st of January, 1924, and the 15th of April.Yes, I found about...