Case ID: sw_298/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MILLER v. STATE.
    (No. 11035.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 5, 1927.
    1. Prostitution <&wkey;l— Offense of pandering is ■ complete on solicitation, so that femaie?s consent does not make her accomplice (Pen. Code 1925, art. 519).
    Under Pen. Code 1925, art. 519, the offense of pandering is complete when the solicitation of the woman has been made so that the fact that she consents does not make her an accomplice.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;507(7) — Prosecuting witness held not accomplice, whose testimony required corroboration in pandering prosecution.
    Where, in a prosecution for pandering, it did not appear that the procured woman, the witness, originated the criminal enterprise, in that she in any manner engineered or procured the solicitation extended to her to become an inmate of a house of prostitution, held, that she was not shown to be an accomplice, so as to require, for defendant’s conviction, corrobora-.tioñ of her testimony.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Collin County ; F. E. Wilcox, Judge.
    , John D. Miller was convicted of pandering, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      R. L. Moulden, of McKinney, for appellant.
    J. -E. Abernathy, Co. Atty., and W. C. Dowdy, Asst. Co. Atty., both of McKinney, and Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, J.

The offeijse is pandering; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

It is appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction because the state’s witness Onie Paris is an accomplice and is uncorroborated. The state’s witness Onie Paris testified, in substance, that she and her husband, Cecil Paris, were on the sidewalk in the town of Farmers-ville, when appellant drove up and called her husband out to the car, where they had a conversation which she could not hear. According to her testimony, after talking to her husband, appellant requested her to go to Dallas for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with men, stating that it would not cost her anything, and that he had a room for her in a house in Dallas which was occupied by three other women who were engaged in the same occupation. Appellant told her that he was to receive one-third of the amount she earned and that she and her husband were to retain two-thirds thereof. The witness refused to go that night, but agreed tó go the next day. The witness further testified that she had only one conversation with appellant that night. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied that he had any conversation with the witness Onie Paris, but stated that her husband, Cecil Paris, requested him to take him (Cecil' Paris) and his wife, Onie Paris, to Dallas, which he refused to do. Appellant denied that he and Cecil Paris agreed to place Onie Paris in a house of prostitution. The witness Cecil Paris, who was jointly indicted with appellant, testified that on the occasion in question appellant asked him to go to Dallas and take his wife, Onie Paris, in order that she might ply the trade of prostitute, to the end that appellant might receive one-third of the proceeds.

Article 519, P. C., denounces as an offense an attempt to procure a female inmate for a house of prostitution. The offense is complete when the solicitation is made and the fact that the female consents does not make her an accomplice. Denman v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 395, 179 S. W. 120. It is not shown by the record that the witness Onie Paris originated the criminal enterprise, .or that she in any manner engineered or procured the solicitation extended to her to become an inmate of a house of prostitution. The witness, therefore, is not shown to be an accomplice. Deatherage v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 181, 237 S. W. 1111; Denman v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 178 S. W. 332.

. The legal question involved above is presented by several bills of exception, a discussion of which in detail is ’deemed unnec^ essary. , '

Believing that the appellant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial, and that the facts are sufficient.to sustain a conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      cg^jFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes