Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel J. Gould, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1954-03-04
Citations: 306 N.Y. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel J. Gould, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 306
Pages: 352–357

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel J. Gould, Appellant.
Argued December 1, 1953;
decided March 4, 1954.
Harry G. Anderson for appellant.
I. Appellant was not a ‘ ‘ vagrant ’ ’ within the meaning of section 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (People v. Sohn, 269 N. Y. 330; People v. Luechini, 75 Misc. 614; People v. Pieri, 269 N. Y. 315; People v. Cowie, 88 Hun 498; People v. Ward, 95 Misc. 508; People v. Reynolds, 300 N. Y. 616; People v. Choremi, 301 N. Y. 417.) II. Appellant’s guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Ledwon, 153 N. Y. 10; People v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590; People v. Owens, 148 N. Y. 648; People v. Pearson, 188 Misc. 744; People v. Kollender, 169 Misc. 995; Steinert v. Sobey, 14 App. Div. 505; People ex rel. Stolofsky v. Superintendent of State Inst., 259 N. Y. 115.) III. Proof of appellant’s good character and reputation was sufficient to create reasonable doubt of guilt. (People v. Colantone, 243 N. Y. 134; People v. Conrow, 200 N. Y. 356; People v. Sylvester, 178 App. Div. 923.) IV. As a matter of law, appellant was improperly convicted of violating clause (b) of subdivision 4 of section 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (People v. Anonymous, 161 Misc. 379.) V. The trial court was manifestly unfair and biased against appellant. (People v. Boro, 237 App. Div. 853; People v. Dryden, 250 N. Y. 154.) VI. The offense of which appellant was accused and convicted was wrongfully and unlawfully incited and instigated by the policewoman. (People v. Mills, 178 N. Y. 274; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435; People v. Conrad, 102 App. Div. 566, 182 N. Y. 529.)
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Paul A. Stone and Charles W. Manning of counsel), for respondent.
I. Defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Vatides, 284 N. Y. 731; People v. Fitch, 282 N. Y. 777; People v. Phelps, 189 App. Div. 775; People v. Mills, 178 N. Y. 274; People v. Moore, 142 App. Div. 402, 201 N. Y. 570.) II. Defendant received a fair trial. (People v. Pindar, 210 N. Y. 191; People v. Nixon, 248 N. Y. 182; People v. Knapper, 230 App. Div. 487.)

Opinion:
Desmond, J.
Defendant's conduct, vicious as it was, did not make out the offense of vagrancy under clause (b) of subdivision 4 of section 887 of the Criminal Code. Subdivision 4 condemns various aspects and incidents of pandering and prostitution. What defendant did here was to suggest to a woman of good character, that she become a prostitute under his management, and she, of course, rejected the proposal at once. In extreme literalness of interpretation, it might perhaps be said that one who makes such a rejected suggestion " offers to secure another for the purpose of prostitution ". However, it is very seldom in our criminal law that a rejected suggestion of wrongdoing-amounts to a substantive crime or offense, and, even under the broad language of section 887, vagrancy is not proven unless the defendant has actually acted- as a pimp or prostitute, and has gone beyond tentative steps toward entering the business. Clause (b) of subdivision 4 describes a person who offers the services of another for purposes of prostitution or offers to secure the services of another for those purposes. Defendant did neither of those things, since there is no showing that he had a prostitute or customers available, but only that he was hoping to obtain a prostitute for whom he could act as procurer.
The judgments should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed.