Stevens v. State

• Decision Date: 23 October 1912
• Citation: 150 S.W. 944
• Parties: STEVENS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

150 S.W. 944

STEVENS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 23, 1912.

Rehearing Denied November 20, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.

M. A. Stevens was convicted of pandering, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E. Newt Spivey, of Texarkana, and R. D. Allen, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARPER, J.

Appellant was indicted under the provisions of section 1, c. 23, of the Acts of the Thirty-Second Legislature, p. 29, and was convicted of pandering; his punishment being assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.

1. The court did not err in overruling the motion to quash the indictment, as it charged an offense under that article of the Code, and the fact that the indictment charged that he committed the offense in more than one of the modes named in the statute did not render the indictment duplicitous. Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 40 S. W. 287; Reum v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 90 S. W. 1109; Cooping v. State, 7 Tex. App. 61; Howell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 592, 16 S. W. 533; Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 163, 121 S. W. 1112.

The indictment alleges the offense to have been committed in Bowie county, Tex. It states that appellant "in Bowie county, Tex., did then and there procure a place as an inmate for Goldie Stevens, a female person, in a house of prostitution kept by Ida Joplin," etc.

2. The court did not err in overruling the application for a continuance. It is stated that he expected to prove by the absent witnesses that the prosecuting witness, Goldie Stevens', reputation for virtue was bad in Hopkins county just prior to her going to Bowie county, and by one of the witnesses that Goldie Stevens had told her that she had always lived a fast life, and that most of her life she had lived in cities. This would be no defense to procuring her a place as inmate in a house of prostitution, for the statute makes such conduct an offense, whether with or without the consent of the person placed in such house. The fact that she was of such character that she might be perfectly willing to go in such house is not an issue under those grounds of the statute submitted by the court to the jury in his charge.

3. Neither was there any error in the court permitting the witness Goldie Stevens to testify. It is true she was the wife of defendant, but this act of the Legislature specifically provides that the wife may testify against her husband when charged with this offense. Section 3, c. 23, Acts of Thirty-Second Legislature.

4. No error is shown in the bill complaining of the action of the court in not permitting appellant's counsel to ask the jury certain questions. The answers the jurymen would have made are not incorporated in the bill, and no facts stated that would show that the jury or any one of them were not competent, fair, and impartial jurors. Grissom v. State, 8 Tex. App. 386; Scott v. State, 29 Tex. App. 217, 15 S. W. 814.

5. Appellant complains that the court erred in permitting the state to prove by Goldie Stevens that, when leaving Hopkins county on their way to Bowie county, defendant procured her to have carnal intercourse with one Mr. Martin, stating that he needed the money to get out of the county with her. In approving the bill the judge states: "On cross-examination defendant proved by this witness that she knew Martin, and that defendant left the buggy next to Martin's house, brought him to her, and that she had carnal intercourse with him, and she gave the money to defendant. I refused the state the right to prove these facts." As thus qualified, the bill presents no error, and when appellant accepted the bill as thus qualified, and files same, he is bound thereby. Hardy v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 289, 20 S. W. 561; Levine v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 647, 34 S. W. 969; Blain v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 448, 31 S. W. 368.

6. It was not improper to permit Bell Bryant to testify that she was present and saw appellant and Goldie Stevens married, under the allegations in the indictment. The objection made was that it was hearsay and not the best evidence. We know of no better evidence to prove the fact of marriage than one who testifies that she knew the parties, was present at their marriage, and knows they were married. Dumas v. State, 14 Tex. App. 464, 46 Am. Rep. 241.

Neither was it error to permit the witness to testify to the marriage of defendant over the objection that "he was drunk" at the time.

The witnesses were properly permitted to testify that defendant first sought to obtain a room at Bell Bryant's; failing in this, that he did obtain a room at Ida Joplin's, and that he subsequently carried his wife to each of these places, and the statements made by defendant on these occasions were properly admitted in evidence.

7. Neither was there any error in permitting the state to prove that the house of Ida Joplin was situated in Bowie county, Tex. The indictment alleged the offense to have been committed by procuring and placing his wife in this house, and the indictment laid the venue in that county.

8. All of those bills which show that certain questions were propounded, but the answer of the witness is not stated, nor what it was expected to be proven, present no question for review.

9. The defendant asked the witness Dock Henderson if "Goldie Stevens, the prosecuting witness, had told him she had carnal intercourse with men before coming to Hopkins county." Objection of the state to this question was sustained. The bill shows he would have answered that she had stated about three years ago she had carnal intercourse with a young man while she was picking hops. The fact that, while she was living with her father on the farm, the girl had been immoral would be no defense to a prosecution under this statute. Nor was the girl's general reputation and chastity in Hopkins county an issue in the case. The issue in this case was, Did appellant procure a place in a house of prostitution for Goldie Stevens as an inmate thereof? and all these extrinsic matters on collateral issues, which had no bearing on that question, were properly excluded by the court.

10. Nor was it permissible to show where Goldie Stevens was placed by another after the prosecution of this defendant had been begun. Events taking place subsequent to the commission of this offense would not be admissible unless they tended to throw some light on the transaction for which defendant was being prosecuted. It seems by a number of these bills that, while the state was prosecuting defendant, defendant's counsel desired as a part of their case to prosecute his wife, but she was not on trial for any offense.

11. Where the defendant on cross-examination asks a witness a question on an immaterial matter, he is bound by the answer, and will not be permitted to impeach the witness. Hart v. State, 15 Tex. App. 202, 49 Am. Rep. 188; Hill v. State, 18 Tex. App. 665; Rosborough v. State, 21 Tex. App. 672, 1 S. W. 459.

12. The...