GA Code § 16-6-10 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 6 - Sexual Offenses|§ 16-6-10. Keeping a Place of Prostitution

 A person having or exercising control over the use of any place or conveyance which would offer seclusion or shelter for the practice of prostitution commits the offense of keeping a place of prostitution when he knowingly grants or permits the use of such place for the purpose of prostitution.   (Ga. L. 1943, p. 568, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-2014, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1970, p. 236, § 3.)   Cross references.   - Abatement of houses of prostitution, T. 41, C. 3.    Occupying rooms for immoral purposes, § 43-21-61.   Law reviews.   - For article, "Crimes and Offenses: Crimes Against the Person," see 28 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 131 (2011).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    To sustain indictment under former Code 1933, § 26-2014 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-6-10), it was necessary to show only that the accused contributed to or aided, directly or indirectly, in maintaining and keeping a lewd house. Shealy v. State, 142 Ga. App. 850, 237 S.E.2d 207 (1977).    Person cannot legally be convicted of maintaining lewd house unless the proof shows that the general reputation of the house or its inmates, or both, was that it was a lewd house, and also that fornication or adultery was actually committed in the house. Smith v. State, 88 Ga. App. 465, 76 S.E.2d 735 (1953).   Evidence insufficient for conviction.    - In a trial for keeping a place of prostitution, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-6-10, a search warrant affidavit, which contained hearsay statements from a neighborhood group purportedly linking the defendant's residence to prostitution, was not admissible as original evidence to explain to the jury why the officers were investigating the defendant's residence. Given that the case was entirely circumstantial, the remaining competent evidence was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Smoot v. State, 316 Ga. App. 102, 729 S.E.2d 416 (2012).   Not error for trial judge to permit state witness to give details of prostitution practiced.    - When the charge is one for receiving another into any house, building, place, etc. for the purpose of prostitution or assignation, it was not error for the trial judge to permit a witness for the state to go into detail as to the type of prostitution and assignation practiced therein over the objection that such evidence unduly tended to inflame and prejudice the jury against the defendant. Saxe v. State, 112 Ga. App. 804, 146 S.E.2d 376 (1965).   Evidence sufficient for conviction.    - Defendant's conviction of keeping a place of prostitution was supported by sufficient evidence, including evidence that an undercover officer visited the establishment for a massage, that, acting as if in charge, the defendant greeted the officer and turned the officer over to a spa employee, that the employee touched the officer's genitals during the massage and offered masturbation and oral sex services for specified prices, that the defendant hired the employee to be a prostitute at the spa and that the employee had provided repeated prostitution services there, that the defendant was aware of these activities, including, among other things, that the two split the money received for the employee's sexual services, that others worked for the defendant as prostitutes on the premises, and, based on certified copies of documents, that defendant owned the business and its business license. Ahn v. State, 279 Ga. App. 501, 631 S.E.2d 711 (2006).    Cited in Snead v. State, 127 Ga. App. 12, 192 S.E.2d 415 (1972); Fluker v. State, 248 Ga. 290, 282 S.E.2d 112 (1981); Rivais v. State, 192 Ga. App. 226, 384 S.E.2d 200 (1989); Singleton v. Eastern Carriers, Inc., 192 Ga. App. 227, 384 S.E.2d 202 (1989).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 24 Am. Jur. 2d, Disorderly Houses, § 1 et seq.   ALR.    - White Slave Traffic Act (Mann Act) as affecting constitutionality or application of state statutes dealing with prostitution, 161 A.L.R. 356.