Case ID: cal-app_34/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Crim. No. 620.
    First Appellate District.
    September 17, 1917.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES SMALL, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Pandering—House of Prostitution—Sufficiency of Evidence.—In this prosecution for the crime of pandering, it is held that the evidence, though hearsay, is sufficient to support the finding that the house in which the girl in question was placed as an inmate was at the time a house of prostitution.
    
      APPEAL from a judgment of the. Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. F. B. Ogden, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    A. M. Armstrong, for Appellant.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

There is but one point made in this case, and that is that the judgment finding the defendant guilty of pandering is not sustained by the evidence because it was not shown that the house in which the girl in question was placed as an inmate was at that time a house of prostitution. While it is true that the evidence as to the nature of the house bears largely upon the reputation of the house, nevertheless we are satisfied that even though it be hearsay, it is sufficient to warrant and support the finding of the jury as to the character of the establishment at the time the girl"was placed there by the defendant.

That is the only point made worthy of discussion. The judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are therefore affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on November 15, 1917.