Saxe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Saxe v. State

140 S.E.2d 887, 111 Ga. App. 131, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 900

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1965

Docket41155

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E.2d 887 (Saxe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saxe v. State, 140 S.E.2d 887, 111 Ga. App. 131, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 900 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhaedt, Judge.

Proof that the defendant, fully clothed and engaged in no activity beyond the drinking of a can of beer while sitting in the living room of her home with two adult men, likewise fully clothed and engaged, and four other women who were dressed in “shorty pajamas” and “peek-a-boo” bras—though exposing no parts of their person except the legs—who were also drinking beer while all carried on a general conversation which was neither boisterous nor profane will not support a conviction under Code § 26-6102 for maintaining a lewd house. There was no evidence of any adultery or fornication being committed in the house other [132]*132than proof of the circumstance that it bore the reputation of being a place where lewd people stayed. That is not enough. Frazier v. State, 93 Ga. App. 204 (2) (91 SE2d 85); Line-barker v. State, 74 Ga. App. 262 (39 SE2d 730); Ward v. State, 14 Ga. App. 110 (80 SE 295).

Decided February 4, 1965. Sullivan, Herndon & Smith, John J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Sylvan A. Garjunkel, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Eberhaedt, Judge.

Proof that the defendant, fully clothed and engaged in no activity beyond the drinking of a can of beer while sitting in the living room of her home with two adult men, likewise fully clothed and engaged, and four other women who were dressed in “shorty pajamas” and “peek-a-boo” bras—though exposing no parts of their person except the legs—who were also drinking beer while all carried on a general conversation which was neither boisterous nor profane will not support a conviction under Code § 26-6102 for maintaining a lewd house. There was no evidence of any adultery or fornication being committed in the house other [132]*132than proof of the circumstance that it bore the reputation of being a place where lewd people stayed. That is not enough. Frazier v. State, 93 Ga. App. 204 (2) (91 SE2d 85); Line-barker v. State, 74 Ga. App. 262 (39 SE2d 730); Ward v. State, 14 Ga. App. 110 (80 SE 295).

Decided February 4, 1965. Sullivan, Herndon & Smith, John J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor, Sylvan A. Garjunkel, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 887, 111 Ga. App. 131, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxe-v-state-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack