State v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 09 April 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21604.,21604.
• Citation: 145 Minn. 303,177 N.W. 358
• Parties: STATE v. ROGERS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

145 Minn. 303

177 N.W. 358

STATE

v.ROGERS.

No. 21604.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 9, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wm. E. Hale, Judge.

J. L. Rogers was convicted of keeping a house of ill fame, and he appeals.Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

On a prosecution for keeping a house of ill fame testimony showing the character of those who visited it and what they said and did while there is competent to show the character of the place.

The claim that the testimony of certain witnesses to the effect that prostitutes frequented the place related to a time before defendant became the proprietor of the house is not borne out by the record.

The offense is continuing in its nature and evidence showing the character of the place shortly before and shortly after the date charged was competent as tending to show its character on that date.

The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike out the testimony of a witness as to the reputation of the place who stated on cross-examination that his information was received from people who had a place of business in the neighborhood and were there daily but resided elsewhere.

The evidence warranted the jury in finding that immoral acts were committed so frequently and openly that the proprietor must have known that his house was resorted to for the purpose of indulging in such practices.

Neither the constitutional right of the defendant to be confronted by the witnesses against him nor his statutory right to be present at the trial were violated by allowing the jury to view the premises in his absence.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.John F. Dahl and George T. Simpson, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., James E. Markham, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wm. M. Nash, Co. Atty., and Frank M. Nye, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Minneapolis, for the State.

TAYLOR, C.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of keeping a house of ill fame and assignation.He urges as grounds for a new trial: (1) That improper evidence was received over his objection; (2) that he is not shown to have had knowledge of the evil practices indulged in on his premises; (3) that the verdict is not justified by the evidence; and (4) that it was error to send the jury to view the premises without permitting him to accompany them.

Defendant was the proprietor of the Revere Hotel in the city of Minneapolis.The office of the hotel, a café and a saloon were located on the ground floor of the building and were connected with each other by doors and passageways.There were three entrances to the building from the street and two from an alley or court at the rear.

[1] 1.The American Protective League, an organization formed to aid the United States Department of Justice in enforcing the war-time regulations of the government, seems to have made the investigations which resulted in this prosecution.Two members of the league testified to the effect that on the evening of December 19, 1918, they registered at the hotel and were assigned rooms; that they informed the clerk at the desk that they wanted two women; and that the women came to their rooms a few minutes thereafter.Two other members of the league testified to the effect that on the evening of December 28, 1918, they entered the café, seated themselves at a table, and bought a drink; that they were asked to go upstairs by two women who came to the table; that they suggested that it might not be safe but were assured that it was as the hotel was protected; that they went to the hotel office and asked the clerk at the desk if they could have women in their rooms and were informed that they could; that they registered and went to their rooms where they found the women waiting for them.These four witnesses were permitted to testify as to what the women said and did on these two occasions.Defendant insists that his objection to this testimony should have been sustained as he was not present on either occasion.It was incumbent on the prosecution to show the character of the place, and this could be done by showing the character of those who visited it and what they said and did while there.Such testimony is not inhibited by the rule excluding hearsay evidence invoked by defendant.State v. Smith, 29 Minn. 193, 12 N. W. 524;State ex rel. v. Terrett, 131 Minn. 349, 154 N. W. 1073.

[2]Defendant asserts that some of the testimony to the effect that prostitutes frequented the place related to a time before he became its proprietor and was inadmissible for that reason.No objection was made on that ground at the time the testimony was received, and no claim was then made that defendant was not the proprietor at the time referred to.The present contention seems to be an afterthought based on the fact that defendant's hotel license was issued on September 12, 1918, and that the testimony in question related to the time of the State Fair held the first week in September and to a period in August.At what time defendant assumed control of the hotel does not clearly appear.His application for the license is dated May 17, 1918, and the evidence is to the effect that he was in charge of the place as early as July and was there continuously thereafter.We find no basis for the objection now urged.

[3]Defendant was charged with keeping a house of ill fame and assignation on the 28th day of December, 1918.A woman who had been sentenced to the workhouse in the latter part of January, 1919, testified that in the early part of that month she had slept at the hotel with a man not her husband every night for a period of about two weeks.Defendant challenges this testimony on the ground that the occurrence took place after the date charged in the indictment.The offense charged consists of a course of conduct continuing in its nature, and evidence tending to show the character of the place shortly before and shortly after December 28th was competent as a basis for an inference that its character was the same on that date.

[4] It appeared from the cross-examination of a witness who had testified that he knew the reputation of the house and that it had the reputation of being a house of assignation, that he had received his information from government employés who did not live in that locality and from members of the league who had places of business in that locality and were there every day but lived elsewhere.Defendant moved to strike out his testimony on the ground that he was not competent to testify to the reputation of the place and insists that the court erred in denying this motion.People who were at the hotel, or in its vicinity, frequently for extended periods were in position to know its character although they did not live in the neighborhood, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike out the testimony.State v. Lee, 80 Iowa, 75, 45 N. W. 545, 20 Am. St. Rep. 401.

While some of the other rulings are questioned we find none of which defendant has cause to complain or which require special mention.

[5] 2.It is probably true that there is no direct evidence that defendant had knowledge of the immoral practices indulged in on his premises.He employed a manager who had charge of the hotel and the café, but he himself had charge of the saloon and was about the place continuously, and the evidence justified the jury in finding that the illicit commerce was indulged in so openly and for such a length of time that he must have known that his hotel was resorted to for the purpose of indulging in such evil practices.

[7] 3.We find sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.What has already been said gives an indication of its character and we will merely add that it sufficiently appeared that prostitutes frequented the place for immoral purposes.

[6] 4.When a witness was describing the location of the entrances to the building and of the passageways within the building, defendant's counsel requested the court to send the jury in charge of officers and accompanied by counsel to view the premises.At first the court declined to do so, but later said that if neither side objected he would send the jury in charge of two officers to look over the building in order that they might ‘be able to apply the evidence more intelligently.’In response to an inquiry he stated that one attorney for the defendant and one for the state...