72 S.W.2d 912 | Tex. Crim. App. | 1934
The offense is keeping a bawdy house; the punishment, a fine of two hundred dollars and confinement in jail for twenty days.
It is now made to appear by supplemental transcript that the complaint is in proper form. The opinion heretofore rendered reversing the case and ordering the prosecution dismissed is withdrawn and the following substituted in lieu thereof:
Bills of exception 21 to 29, inclusive, show that the State proved by several witnesses that appellant's reputation for virtue and chastity was bad. Appellant had not placed her reputation in any respect in issue. She did not live in the houses alleged to have been occupied by prostitutes, but resided in another house with her husband. There was no evidence that the house in which appellant resided was a bawdy house, and no proof that appellant plied the vocation of a prostitute. Appellant's objection to this testimony should have been sustained. We quote from Gamel v. State,
We are aware of the holding in Dailey v. State,
A witness testified in effect that it was well known that appellant conducted a bawdy house. This testimony was inadmissible.
Upon another trial an election between transactions should be required. The State's proof was to the effect that appellant conducted more than one bawdy house. The complaint and information contained one count. We quote from Golden v. State,
"Where an indictment or information contains but one count, charging a misdemeanor, our decisions are not clear whether or not the state can be required to elect. In the case of Williams v. State,
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.