-
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. Crim. 202 ,253 P. 305 , and Arnold v. State, 28 Tex. App. 480[28 Tex. Crim. 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. Crim. 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 occupied *Page 291 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.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. A6513.
Citation Numbers: 275 P. 660, 42 Okla. Crim. 289, 1929 OK CR 108, 1929 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 366
Judges: Edwards, Davenport, Chappell
Filed Date: 3/30/1929
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024