State v. Price

• Decision Date: 08 January 1906
• Citation: 92 S.W. 174,115 Mo. App. 656
• Parties: STATE v. PRICE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

92 S.W. 174

115 Mo. App. 656

STATE v. PRICE.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 8, 1906.

1. DISORDERLY HOUSE — EVIDENCE—REPUTATION OF INMATES.

In a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, evidence of the reputation of accused and other female inmates of the house was admissible, as bearing on the character of the place, though defendant did not put her character in issue.

2. SAME—WEIGHT.

The fact that women inhabit or frequent a house, and are visited there by different men in a manner not recognized by social usage, is very persuasive evidence that the place is used for purposes of prostitution, and intended to be so used by the person in charge.

3. SAME—INSTRUCTIONS.

Where, in a prosecution for keeping a bawdyhouse, the court charged that a bawdyhouse was a house of ill fame kept for the resort and commerce of lewd people of both sexes, an instruction that if the jury believed that accused kept a common bawdyhouse and "did willfully and knowingly keep or suffer to remain in and about her house lewd women, or men, for the purpose of prostitution, or permit them to come together and meet or remain there for the purpose of having illicit sexual intercourse," etc., she was guilty, was not prejudicially erroneous in that the use of the disjunctive, "or," authorized a conviction in case accused suffered either lewd women or men to remain in her house without requiring that the house was permitted to be used for immoral purposes.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ray County; J. W. Alexander, Judge.

Maud Price was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse, and she appeals. Affirmed.

J. L. Farris, Jr., and M. G. Roberts, for appellant. Albert P. Hamilton and George W. Crowley, for the State.

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant was charged with the offense of keeping a bawdyhouse and upon trial convicted.

The evidence introduced by the state strongly supported the charge and justified its submission to the jury. Defendant offered no evidence. The state, over the objection of defendant, was permitted to show the reputation of defendant and the other female inmates of the house kept by her for chastity, and also that of the men who visited the place. It is objected that, as defendant did not put her character in issue, the state could not, and, therefore, evidence of her reputation in the community offered by the prosecution should have been excluded. The point is not well taken. If defendant's unchaste acts were the subject of the offense, the evidence would not be admissible for other purposes than that of impeachment, for the fact of her ill repute would have no tendency to prove specific acts of sexual misconduct, but the...