Court Opinion

ID: 9544293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:54:13.475545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:35.943414
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, however I believe there is an even more serious defect in the complaint requiring that appellant’s conviction be reversed. The city ordinance states in part:
“ * * * every lewd and dissolute person, who lives in and about a house of ill fame, or solicits for the purposes of prostitution or lewdness upon the streets, alleys or public places of the City and every common prostitute * * * is a vagrant and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.” (emphasis supplied.)
The crime prohibited by the ordinance is that of being a vagrant and one who does one or more of the acts mentioned in the ordinance is a vagrant. However, nowhere in the amended complaint filed against the appellant is it alleged that she committed the crime of being a vagrant, the crime prohibited by the ordinance. Therefore, I believe that the amended complaint failed to charge the appellant with having committed a crime and for this reason her conviction must be reversed.