Key v. City of Ardmore

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Key v. City of Ardmore

1929 OK CR 108, 275 P. 660, 42 Okla. Crim. 289, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 30, 1929

DocketNo. A6513.

StatusPublished

This text of 1929 OK CR 108 (Key v. City of Ardmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Key v. City of Ardmore, 1929 OK CR 108, 275 P. 660, 42 Okla. Crim. 289, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 366 (Okla. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*290 EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiff in error hereinafter called defendant, was charged in the city court of Ardmore with occupying a room for the purpose of prostitution. From a conviction in the city court, he appealed to the county court, and, upon conviction, a fine of $19 was assessed, from which he has appealed to this court.

Section 472 of the ordinance of the city of Ardmore in part provides:

“It shall be unlawful for a bawd, a prostitute, loose woman, or any other person, to keep, occupy, or use any room, apartment, tenement for the purpose of prostitution or assignation. * * *”

The record discloses that at the time charged two policemen went to a room in the T. P. Rooming House and discovered defendant and one Bernice Settle in a room together, the woman in bed and defendant in a night garment.' There was evidence that Bernice Settle had the reputation of being a prostitute. It is argued that this evidence of the reputation of Bernice Settle was incompetent, citing Young v. City of Ardmore, 36 Okla. Cr. 202, 253 P. 305, and Arnold v. State, 28 Tex. App. 480, 13 S. W. 774. The Young Case is not in point. The charge there was that the accused associated with a prostitute, and, in order to establish the offense, it was necessary to prove the person with whom defendant associated was a prostitute in fact, and not that she bore such reputation. In the Arnold Case, the accused was charged with being a common prostitute, and it was held necessary that the facts showing accused to be a prostitute must be proven, and not merely general reputation. See in this connection Jones v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 79, 133 P. 1134; Balch v. State, 65 Okla. 146, 164 P. 776. The charge here being that defendant occupied a room with Bernice Settle for the purpose of prostitution, not that he oc *291 cupied a room with a prostitute or occupied a room in a house of prostitution, it is not essential that it be proven that the room was in a house of prostitution or that the woman occupying the room with defendant was in fact a prostitute. The offense is proven when it is shown that the parties occupied a room under circumstances sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they were there for the purpose of prostitution.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*290 EDWARDS, P. J.

The plaintiff in error hereinafter called defendant, was charged in the city court of Ardmore with occupying a room for the purpose of prostitution. From a conviction in the city court, he appealed to the county court, and, upon conviction, a fine of $19 was assessed, from which he has appealed to this court.

Section 472 of the ordinance of the city of Ardmore in part provides:

“It shall be unlawful for a bawd, a prostitute, loose woman, or any other person, to keep, occupy, or use any room, apartment, tenement for the purpose of prostitution or assignation. * * *”

The record discloses that at the time charged two policemen went to a room in the T. P. Rooming House and discovered defendant and one Bernice Settle in a room together, the woman in bed and defendant in a night garment.' There was evidence that Bernice Settle had the reputation of being a prostitute. It is argued that this evidence of the reputation of Bernice Settle was incompetent, citing Young v. City of Ardmore, 36 Okla. Cr. 202, 253 P. 305, and Arnold v. State, 28 Tex. App. 480, 13 S. W. 774. The Young Case is not in point. The charge there was that the accused associated with a prostitute, and, in order to establish the offense, it was necessary to prove the person with whom defendant associated was a prostitute in fact, and not that she bore such reputation. In the Arnold Case, the accused was charged with being a common prostitute, and it was held necessary that the facts showing accused to be a prostitute must be proven, and not merely general reputation. See in this connection Jones v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 79, 133 P. 1134; Balch v. State, 65 Okla. 146, 164 P. 776. The charge here being that defendant occupied a room with Bernice Settle for the purpose of prostitution, not that he oc *291 cupied a room with a prostitute or occupied a room in a house of prostitution, it is not essential that it be proven that the room was in a house of prostitution or that the woman occupying the room with defendant was in fact a prostitute. The offense is proven when it is shown that the parties occupied a room under circumstances sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they were there for the purpose of prostitution.

The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK CR 108, 275 P. 660, 42 Okla. Crim. 289, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/key-v-city-of-ardmore-oklacrimapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack