State v. Everett

• Decision Date: 28 September 1922
• Docket Number: 17059.
• Citation: 209 P. 519,121 Wash. 322
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. EVERETT.

209 P. 519

121 Wash. 322

STATE v. EVERETT.

No. 17059.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 28, 1922

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; Wm. A. Grimshaw, Judge.

Fletcher Everett was convicted of living with and accepting the earnings of a common prostitute, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Barrows & Hanna, of Wenatchee, for appellant.

Sam R Sumner and Frank Lebeck, both of Wenatchee, for the State.

MAIN J.

The defendant in this case was charged by information with the crime of living with and accepting the earnings of a common prostitute. At the conclusion of the state's evidence he moved for a directed verdict, which was overruled. At the conclusion of the evidence the cause was submitted to the jury, and a verdict of guilty returned. A motion for new trial being made and overruled, the defendant appeals.

The evidence upon material matters, as is usual in such cases was in conflict. There was evidence which, if believed by the jury, would sustain the following summary as to the facts: On the afternoon of June 7, 1920 the appellant met the complaining witness at her room in a hotel in Wenatchee, where she had been practicing prostitution for a few days. At this time he suggested to her that she go with him on that evening to a house or shack in the south part of town where she could meet men and get some money. She did not at that time consent to go, but later in the evening the appellant and another person called, and she went to the place mentioned, where she practiced prostitution with three men. Lather in the evening, and about 11 o'clock, she went with the appellant in an automobile to Cashmere. They stopped at a hotel there and occupied the same room and the same bed. Before leaving Wenatchee, the appellant had asked the complaining witness to go to Leavenworth with him, as she could make money there. On the morning of the 8th at Cashmere the appellant purchased a pair of shoes for the complaining witness, which cost probably $6.50. The complaining witness says she called the attention of the appellant to the fact that she needed shoes, but did not request him to buy them for her. The appellant testified that she requested him to buy the shoes and he expected to be reimbursed for the same. On this morning the person who had visited the room of the complaining witness at Wenatchee with the appellant came to Cashmere, bringing the appellant's suit case and his clothes, and also some of the clothes of the complaining witness. The two men with whom the complaining witness had originally come to Wenatchee from another part of the state followed her to Cashmere on the morning after she left Wenatchee. In a conversation of the appellant with these men they were told that he would not permit the complaining witness to return to them. On the afternoon of the 7th the complaining witness and appellant left Wenatchee together with the man who had brought the suit case and went to Leavenworth, where the appellant and the complaining witness registered at a hotel as husband and wife. During that afternoon or night the complaining witness practiced prostitution with three men, and received therefor the sum of $8.50. When men would come to the room for this purpose, the appellant would leave the room. At about 12 o'clock that night he returned to the room and remained in the same room and the same bed with the complaining witness during that night. On the following day they returned to Wenatchee and secured a room which they occupied together until some time early the next morning, when they were arrested. Before leaving Leavenworth the appellant requested the complaining witness to go on to Ellensburg or Cle Elum with him as she could make money there. Also before leaving Leavenworth the appellant demanded of and received from the complaining witness $8.50, being all of the money which she had earned the night previous in practicing prostitution. On the afternoon of the day they arrived at Leavenworth, the appellant gave her $2, with which to buy some small articles of clothing.

It is first contended that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the charge either of living with or accepting the earnings of a common prostitute. The time during which the parties lived together is not material, if it is shown that they were doing so with the intention of...