Case ID: sw_278/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9664.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 9, 1925.)
    Disorderly house <&wkey;>l7 — Proof of general reputation alone insufficient to sustain verdict.
    Proof of general reputation alone is insufficient to sustain verdict of guilty of keeping bawdy house.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Lamar County Court; W. Dewey Lawrence, Judge.
    Mrs. Josephine Johnson was convicted of keeping a bawdy house, and she appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Patrick & Eubank, of Paris, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and' Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is keeping a bawdy house, and the punishment is a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail.

The information contains many counts, but the court only submitted the one with reference to running a bawdy house.

A deputy sheriff testified: That he went to the defendant’s home on the night of March. 17, 1925, with the sheriff and other officers, and that they found 10 people there. That they stood on the outside and watched them, and they were dancing and playing the piano and vietrola, and that he saw them in the kitchen-pantry drinking something out of bottles. Later when they went in the house they found one bottle that had some whisky in it, a pint bottle about half full. That they arrested all the parties in the house that night. After the officers entered the house, and before making the arrest, they seemed to have stayed in there some time and their testimony fails to disclose any fact which would indicate that the parties in the house were in any manner improperly conducting themselves. In fact, the state’s testimony shows that at least one of the officers participated in the dancing. There was also proof that the general reputation of the house was bad, so far as it being disorderly was concerned. In fact, this proof as to its general reputation is the only suggestion in the record tending to show the appellant’s guilt. The state’s testimony affirmatively shows that no witness was able to testify to any act of intercourse between any parties whatsoever in said house at any time. The proof of general reputation alone is not sufficient on which to base a verdict of guilty. O’Brien v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 431, 117 S. W. 133; Ramey v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 45 S. W. 489; Renfro v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 157, 189 S. W. 137; Clifford v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 204, 178 S. W. 365; Cross v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 430, 213 S. W. 638. Also see Hardeman v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 358, 273 S. W. 585.

Because the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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.