Case Name: Leona Hearne v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-03-11
Citations: 73 Tex. Crim. 390
Docket Number: No. 3036
Parties: Leona Hearne v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 390–407

Head Matter:
Leona Hearne v. The State.
No. 3036.
Decided March 11, 1914.
Rehearing denied April 8, 1914.
1. —Keeping Disorderly House—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error.
2. —Same—Evidence—Leading Questions.
Where the witness was asked by State’s counsel whether he knew a certain party who lived with defendant, which the witness answered in the negative, there was no error.
3. —Same—Evidence—Circumstances.
Upon trial of keeping a disorderly 'house, there was no error in permitting State’s witnesses to testify that they made arrangements with two certain women to go to defendant’s house and procure rooms for the purpose of sexual intercourse, and that a certain State’s witness saw the first two State’s witnesses at the time they were making this arrangement and that the former went to the house of defendant and caught them all there.
4. —Same—Evidence—Harmless Error.
Where the court admitted improper testimony under a mistake and as soon as he discovered the same corrected it by so instructing the jury, there was no error under the facts of this case.
5. —Same—Argument of Counsel—Bill of Exceptions.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the defendant testified herself, giving the jury an opportunity to observe her whole conduct, demeanor and dress, and who could not have possibly avoided seeing the large diamonds which she wore, if she wore any, there was no error in State’s counsel’s argument asking the jury to look at defendant and observe the large diamonds she wore and that every glitter from them denoted a lost soul, as this was a mere flight of oratory; besides, the bill of exceptions in no way disclosed how this argument could injuriously affect the defendant in the trial of the cause. Following Pierson v. State, 18 Texas Grim. App., 524, and other cases. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.
6. —Same—Evidence—Accomplice—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the evidence showed that two certain State’s witnesses, one of whom was a member of the police force, were not accomplices, it was improper in the court’s charge to submit that one was an accomplice and permit the jury to pass on the fact whether the other one was also an accomplice. Following Minter v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 634. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.
7. —Same—Who is an Accomplice—Rule Stated.
An accomplice is a person who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent with the principal offender unites in the commission of the crime.
8. —Same—Who is Not an Accomplice—Officers—Rule Stated.
Where an officer or other party understands or is led to believe that a violation of the law is in contemplation and takes steps to detect that crime or get evidence by which the guilty party may be punished, he is not an accomplice. Following Bush v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 299.
9. —Same—Case Stated—Accomplice.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the evidence did not show that either of the State’s witnesses who testified against the defendant were in any way interested, aiding or abetting the defendant in the keeping of a disorderly house, with which she was charged, and the whole of what either of them did was at the suggestion of certain women to take advantage of the fact that defendant was keeping and running an assignation house, and that they went there to meet these women for illicit intercourse, they did not thereby become participants in the keeping of said disorderly house. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.
10. —Same—Harmless Error—Accomplice—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the court improperly charged on the law of accomplice testimony, as the State’s witnesses were not accomplices, yet the same inuring to defendant’s advantage, was harmless error.
11. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of keeping a disorderly house, the evidence clearly, fully, completely and satisfactorily showed defendant’s guilt under a proper charge of the court, there was no reversible error. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the County Court of Harris. Tried below before the Hon. C. C. Wren.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully keeping a disorderly house; penalty, a fine of $200 and twenty days confinement in the county jail
The opinion states the case.
Van Velzer & Lewis and Heidingsfelders, for appellant.
On question of accomplice testimony and insufficient corroboration: Dever v. State, 30 S. W. Rep., 1071; Bush v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 299, 151 S. W. Rep., 554; Brann v. State, 39 S. W. Rep., 940; Mizell v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 226,128 S. W. Rep., 125; Chambers v. State, 44 S. W. Rep., 495; Gillian v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 132; Hoyle v. State, 4 Texas Crim. App., 239; Simms v. State, 8 id., 230; Weldon v. State, 10 id., 400; Birch v. State, 106 S. W. Rep., 344; Truelove v. State, 71 S. W. Rep., 601; Holmes v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 423, 156 S. W. Rep., 1172; Tracy v. State, 61 S. W. Rep., 127; Cole v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 459, 156 S. W. Rep., 929; Holman v. State, 51 S. W. Rep., 379; Smith v. State, 70 S. W. Rep., 545.
On question of argument of counsel: Bearden v. State, 79 S. W. Rep., 37; Stephens v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 255; Crawford v. State, 15 id., 501; Pickett v. State, 12 id., 99; Patterson v. State, 60 S. W. Rep., 557; Byrd v. State, 47 S. W. Rep., 721; Davis v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 236, 114 S. W. Rep., 366; Machem v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 115, 109 S. W. Rep., 126; Wright v. State, 37 S. W. Rep., 732; Jenkins v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 457, 93 S. W. Rep., 726; Battles v. State, 109 S. W. Rep., 195; O’Brien v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 431, 117 S. W. Rep., 133.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted for unlawfully keeping a disorderly house,—an assignation house, and her punishment assessed as prescribed by law.
It is unnecessary to detail the evidence. We have carefully considered it and it is sufficient to show her guilt clearly, fully, completely and satisfactorily. In appellant's first bill of exception she complains that the State was permitted to ask Barden: "Do you know whether a fellow named Charlie Armington lived with defendant ?" to which he answered, "I don't know." This clearly shows no error. Sweeney v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 593, 146 S. W. Rep., 883, and cases therein cited.
By other bills appellant objected to the witnesses McPhael and Spradley testifying in effect the arrangement they made with two girls,— .Mary and Ethel,—and what was said between them at the time in arranging to go to appellant's house and procure rooms for the purpose of sexual intercourse. The record shows that these girls had the reputation of meeting men at assignation houses for sexual intercourse and that Spradley that night first met them on the streets of Houston near appellant's house; that McPhael came up and he introduced him to them; that they then made arrangements with these two girls to meet them at' Mrs. Hearne's for said purpose, the girls themselves suggesting Mrs. Hearne's as the place for the purpose, telling the men to go and see Mrs. Hearne, engage the rooms and tell Mrs. Hearne that it was for Mary and Ethel. The parties then separated, the men going direct to Mrs. Hearne's house, seeing her, telling her the message the girls had sent her and she thereupon rented to them two rooms for said purpose and the girls in a few minutes thereafter came there and appellant took them to one of these rooms all for the purpose of-carrying out the object of the men and girls to then and there have sexual intercourse. Clearly all this testimony was admissible. So was the testimony of Bass that he saw these two men at the time they were making this arrangement with these girls and watched them, and subsequently, on thé same night, went to Mrs. Hearne's house and caught these two men and these two girls in said house on that occasion.
Under a misapprehension the court, over appellant's objection, permitted Grayson to testify that in Eebruarjq 1913, he went to appellant's said house and pulled the house and arrested her for running a gambling house, finding seven or eight men therein at the time, some hiding in various ways. As soon as the court discovered his mistake in admitting this testimony, he excluded it and told the jury that he had admitted it under a misapprehension and that they were not to consider said testimony for any purpose. While the court should not have admitted this testimony, as soon as he discovered his mistake, he corrected it and as the matter is presented it shows no reversible error.
The only other question is raised by appellant's fifth bill. It, like each of appellant's other bills, is too meager and wholly insufficient to require consideration. (James v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 75; Conger v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 312.) This bill complains of this language of the assistant district attorney in his opening argument: "Gentlemen of the jury: Look at the defendant. Look at the large diamonds in her ears, and other diamonds she wears. .Don't you know that every glitter from them denotes a lost soul?" The bill in no way discloses under what circumstances or surroundings this remark of the attorney was made. If we could look to the record to complete the bill, or to make it intelligible,—even if that could he done,—it would show that appellant herself testified on the stand. Without doubt the jury did look at her and observed her whole conduct, demeanor and dress and could not possibly have avoided seeing her large diamonds which she wore, if she wore any. The bill in no way discloses that she did not wear diamonds on this occasion. The district attorney's question, "Don't you know that ever glitter from them denotes a lost soul ?" was a mere flight of oratory, or poetic question. This bill in no way discloses how this did or could injuriously affect appellant in the trial of this cause. This court is frequently called upon to pass upon complaints of prosecuting attorneys' arguments and occasionally reversed cases because thereof.
Bach casé must largely stand upon its own bottom. The rules with reference thereto are well established and have many times been clearly enunciated by this court. This court, through Judge Willson, in Pierson v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 534, said: "It has become quite common to except to the remarks of counsel for the State in their addresses to the jury. We find such exceptions in the majority of contested cases that come before us. If we had sustained all these exceptions, the effect would have been to have virtually closed the mouths of prosecuting attorneys. While argument should be restricted legitimately, it should not be so unreasonably limited as to render it ineffectual. The State has rights in this respect as well as defendants. And in view of the frequency of exceptions of this character, we will take occasion here to say that before we will reverse a conviction because of remarks of prosecuting counsel, it must clearly appear to us, first, that the remarks were improper, and, second, that they were of a material character, and such as, under the circumstances, were calculated to injuriously affect the defendant's rights." The Pierson case, supra, has manv times been cited and approved by this court. In House v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 227, wherein a much worse statement, was com plained ofj by the district attorney, Presiding Judge White said: "We construe the remark to be not so much evidence of a desire to make use of foreign matter to the injmw and prejudice of defendant as an- impassioned expression, highly exaggerated it may be, but springing inadvertently from the heat of debate. If all such remarks were held reversible error, but few convictions would stand the test where the case had been hotly contested by able and zealous counsel in the courts below." Again, in Tweedle v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 586, this court, in discussing the argument of the district attorney in that case, through Judge Davidson, said: "Concede that this argument was improper, it does not follow that the judgment should be reversed for this cause. The remarks must not only be improper, but they must be of such a nature as would be clearly calculated to prejudice the rights of the defendants. To reverse all cases where counsel fail to confine themselves to the record would render trials farces. There is hardly a case of any importance tried but that during the progress of the trial some unguarded expression is used by counsel upon either side. It would be a remarkable coincidence if this were not true. House v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 227; Bass v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 62." See, also, McConnell v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 354; Young v. State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 536; Frizzell v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 42; Rahm v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 310; Tipton v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 530; Lewis v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 201; Walker v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 503; Love v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 27. We cite only some of the older cases. A great many cases to the same effect could be cited down to this very date, but we deem it unnecessary. In our opinion this bill does not show reversible error.
'The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
DAVIDSON, Judge, dissenting.