Case Name: The People, ex rel. Emma Lee and others, vs. Butler H. Bixby and others, constituting a court of Special Sessions, &c.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-05-03
Citations: 67 Barb. 221
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People, ex rel. Emma Lee and others, vs. Butler H. Bixby and others, constituting a court of Special Sessions, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Barbour's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
The People, ex rel. Emma Lee and others, vs. Butler H. Bixby and others, constituting a court of Special Sessions, &c.
Where six women made an indecent exposure of their persons, for money, to five men present and paying therefor; held, that such exhibition made the room wherein it occurred a “ public place,” within the meaning of the statute, although it was a room in a house of prostitution, and not open to the general public.
Held, also, that the offence being a misdemeanor commit.tp.fi by all, at the same time, each aiding and abetting every other, the offence was joint, and the offenders could be jointly prosecuted and convicted.
CERTIORARI to review a conviction of the relators of the crime of indecent exposure.
William F. Howe, for the relators.
B. K. Phelps, (district attorney,) for the people.
[First Department, General Term at New York,
May 3, 1875.

Opinion:
By the Court, Davis, P. J.
Two questions are made in this case.
First. That the indecent exposure was not made in a "public place."
Second. That the relators could not be jointly prosecuted and convicted. As to the first of these questions, we are of opinion that the exhibition made by the six relators, for money, to the five men present and paying therefor, made the room where it occurred a public place within the meaning of the statute, although it was a room in a house of prostitution, and not open to the general public. Any place may be made public by a temporary assemblage, (Bishop on Statutory Crimes, 298;) and this is especially so when the assemblage is gathered to witness an exhibition for hire. It' is obvious, from the evidence in this case, that the room where the acts took place was one used for such purposes, whenever persons could be induced to attend and pay for the same."
As to the second point. The offence was a misdemeanor committed by all the relators, at the same time, each aiding and abetting every other, and all joining to make the exposure indescribably indecent. We think it was a joint offence ; and we see no reason why the offence of indecent exposure, under the statute, may not be jointly committed, where several persons agree in concert to do the acts which constitute the crime, for the purpose of making a common exhibition. It has been so held in this class of cases, by the English courts.(Rex v. Ochard, 3 Cox, 248. Rex v. Harris, 11 id., 659.) The proceedings should be affirmed and the writ dismissed,
Judgment accordingly.
Davis, Brady and Daniels, Justices.]
S. C., reported very briefly, 4 Hun, 636,.