People v. Marron

HOUSER, J. Defendants were convicted on each of three counts of the crime of pandering, and on one count of the crime of conspiracy to commit the same offense. They appeal from the ensuing judgments that were rendered against them, as well as from an order by which their motion for a new trial was denied.

By the terms of the statute (Stats. 1911, p. 9) under which in part the defendants were prosecuted, it is provided that:

[434]“Any person who shall procure a female inmate for a house of prostitution, . . . shall be guilty of a felony, to-wit: pandering, ...”

In that connection, the first point presented in behalf of appellant Marrón is that the statute “is too vague and indefinite to constitute the basis of a criminal charge . . . ”; and in substance, the argument is restricted to the contention that because the phrase “house of prostitution” is not defined in the statute, no one is apprised of the nature of the crime that is intended to be denounced.

In the case of Ferguson v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 554, 558 [147 Pac. 603], the word “prostitution” is defined as follows:

“Prostitution means common, indiscriminate, illicit intercourse for hire. It is the practice by a female in offering her body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men for money or its equivalent. ...”

And in People v. Mead, 145 Cal. 505 [78 Pac. 1047], in effect it appeared that the house in question contained twelve rooms, commonly known as “cribs”, each of which was occupied by a different woman as a place of prostitution for herself alone, and that the wife of the defendant occupied one of the rooms for that purpose. It was held that, “under the circumstances, defendant’s wife was in a ‘house of prostitution', within the meaning and intent of the statute under consideration, . . . The fact that the court instructed the jury that the house must -be occupied by two or more women would not justify this court or the court below in granting a new trial because there was no proof that a particular room of the house was occupied by more than one woman, if the evidence was otherwise sufficient to justify the verdict."

In People v. Slater, 119 Cal. 620, 622 [51 Pac. 957], it was contended that the trial court erred in amending a certain instruction that was given to the jury. In passing upon the question thus presented, the Supreme Court said: