State v. Lewis
| Citation | 283 N.W. 424,226 Iowa 98 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | 44065. |
| Parties | STATE v. LEWIS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from District Court, Webster County; H. E. Fry, Judge.
From her conviction of the crime of keeping a house of ill fame defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Edward Robinson, of Ft. Dodge, for appellant.
John H. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Buell McCash, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen and R. A. Knudson, Co. Atty., of Ft. Dodge, for the State.
For some years prior to September 15, 1937, the date named in the indictment, the defendant had operated, at Fort Dodge, Iowa a rooming and boarding house known as the Oxford, in which she resided with her husband, who was a concession man at fairs and carnivals and lived with defendant in the premises during the times he was not so engaged. In addition to the rooms occupied by them there were a sitting room, a lounge room and two bedrooms on the first floor, and about six bedrooms on the second floor.
The evidence for the state was to the effect that at the time fixed in the indictment the reputation of the house in the neighborhood was that of a house of prostitution and that the general reputation of the defendant and her husband for chastity was bad; that the house was frequently visited by a number of women generally reputed to be prostitutes and by men whose general reputation for chastity and for moral character was bad; that upon one police raid at which defendant, her husband and other occupants of the place were arrested, one of these visiting women was found in bed with a gentleman from out of town; that the defendant sold liquor, and that most of the men coming out of the house appeared to be under the influence of liquor; that the defendant employed Kathryn May Ellis, a girl who described herself as a prostitute, to ply her vocation in the premises upon a split fee basis which defendant told this " girl" was the amount " they" charged in addition to room and board; that this girl " worked" as a prostitute for defendant for a few days, making her agreed payments, and that during those few days there was no other girl there " steady", but that a " girl" named Billie came as Kathryn Ellis left.
Defendant testified that she made her living by having roomers and boarders; that the people arrested at her house were roomers and boarders and their friends; that when they were taken to jail after a raid upon the house they were not charged with operating a house of ill fame, but that it was some kind of a liquor charge and that defendant had never in her life seen Kathryn May Ellis, the prostitute who claimed to have " worked" in the Oxford at said occupation for defendant. The other evidence by witnesses for defendant was largely directed to the impeachment of Kathryn May Ellis and the rebuttal of her evidence.
Over appropriate objections and exceptions the trial court permitted various witnesses, during the case in chief for the state, to testify that in the community at the time in question the general reputation of the accused for chastity was bad. It is urged by appellant that her reputation as to chastity was not an issue in her trial upon a charge of keeping a house of ill fame, especially when appellant had not placed her reputation in issue and the state had made this issue as a part of its evidence in chief, and that the admission of this evidence violated the principle of criminal law that the character of a defendant cannot be impeached or attacked by the state unless he first puts his character in issue. The state contends that, since defendant resided on the premises and was herself an inmate of the dwelling described in the indictment, such evidence was properly admitted under the rule that the bad reputation for chastity of the inmates of a house and those who resort thereto may be proven as bearing upon the question of whether or not the house is, in fact, one of ill fame. Authorities from various jurisdictions are cited in support of these conflicting propositions.
The case of State v. Hull, 18 R.I. 207, 26 A. 191, 20 L.R.A. 609, and City of St. Paul v. Harris, 150 Minn. 170, 184 N.W. 840, appear to sustain appellant's contention. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held in Gamel v. State, 21 Tex.App. 357, 17 S.W. 158, that such evidence was inadmissible. Later the Texas Court, in Dailey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 55 S.W. 823, held such testimony was proper, while in the later case of Adams v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 72 S.W.2d 912, the same court observed that the defendant did not live in the houses in question, that the opinion in the Dailey Case did not show whether or not the accused was an inmate of the house and that the decision in the Gamel Case was controlling under such circumstances. Appellate courts of various states in the following cases have held such evidence to be admissible against a defendant residing on the premises in question. Sparks v. State, 59 Ala. 82; Batesville v. Smythe, 138 Ark. 276, 211 S.W. 140; Howard v. People, 27 Colo. 396, 61 P. 595; Whitlock v. State, 4 Ind.App. 432, 30 N.E. 934; Betts v. State, 93 Ind. 375; Schultz v. State, 200 Ind. 1, 161 N.E. 5; State v. Mack, 41 La.Ann. 1079, 6 So. 808; State v. Price, 115 Mo.App. 656, 92 S.W. 174; State v. Flick, Mo.App., 198 S.W. 1134; State v. Hendricks, 15 Mont. 194, 39 P. 93, 48 Am.St.Rep. 666; State v. McDowell, Dud., S.C., 346; The Pastime v. State, 138 Tenn. 315, 197 S.W. 1089; State v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435.It is, therefore, apparent that the weight of authority permits the introduction of such evidence.
The Iowa authorities now definitely agree that evidence of the reputation of the inmates in and resorters to an alleged house of ill fame is admissible as bearing upon the character of the house. State v. Lyon, 39 Iowa 379; State v. Lee, 80 Iowa 75, 45 N.W. 545, 20 Am.St.Rep. 401; State v. Beebe, 115 Iowa 128, 88 N.W. 358; State v. Burns, 145 Iowa 588, 124 N.W. 600; State v. Gilliland, 187 Iowa 794, 174 N.W. 496.This established rule is mentioned at this point in connection with the discussion of State v. Hand, 7 Iowa 411, 71 Am.Dec. 453, which was cited by the Rhode Island Court in the Hull Case supra in support of that decision.
A careful examination of the Hand Case discloses that the basis of its decision was not the erroneous admission of evidence but an erroneous instruction as to the proof necessary to convict. The holding of the court was that " the defendant cannot be made liable as the keeper of such a house, by evidence of ‘ common reputation as to his character.’ * * *
The bad character of the prisoner is entirely immaterial, in the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial