From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 26, 1940
110 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1940)

Summary

In Williams v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 377, 110 F.2d 554 (1940), the United States Court of Appeals reversed a conviction of soliciting for prostitution on two grounds, one of which was that the evidence was insufficient.

Summary of this case from Ford v. U.S.

Opinion

No. 7536.

Decided February 26, 1940.

In Error to the Police Court of the District of Columbia.

Dora Williams was convicted of unlawfully inviting a person for purpose of prostitution, and she brings error.

Reversed.

Myron G. Ehrlich, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff in error.

David A. Pine, U.S. Atty., and Albert Goldstein, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Washington, D.C., for defendant in error.

Before STEPHENS, EDGERTON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.


The Code forbids "any person to invite * * * any person * * * in or upon any avenue, street, road, highway, open space, alley, public square, or inclosure in the District of Columbia, to accompany * * * her * * * for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose." This condemns solicitation in places of certain sorts. Defendant was convicted on an information which does not charge that she acted in any such place, but charges merely that she did "unlawfully invite * * * for the purpose of prostitution" in the District of Columbia. Therefore it charges no crime. This defect cannot be cured by verdict. United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 8 S.Ct. 571, 31 L.Ed. 516. Cf. Ainsworth v. United States, 1 App.D.C. 518, 523.

D.C. Code, Supp. V, 1939, Tit. 6, § 177a.

Cf. Bailey v. United States, 69 App. D.C. 25, 27, 98 F.2d 306.

Even if the information were valid, the conviction would not be, for there was no proof that defendant's purpose was among those which the statute prohibits. The government's evidence was that she approached a policeman's car on a certain street and "asked him if he wanted a date;" that he answered yes; that she asked if she should get in the car, and he answered yes; that she got in the car and asked "if he wanted to drive and talk." Defendant's purpose was at worst ambiguous. There was no evidence that the parties were strangers to each other; and even if they were, the proposed "date" did not necessarily include prostitution.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 26, 1940
110 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1940)

In Williams v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 377, 110 F.2d 554 (1940), the United States Court of Appeals reversed a conviction of soliciting for prostitution on two grounds, one of which was that the evidence was insufficient.

Summary of this case from Ford v. U.S.

In Williams v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 377, 110 F.2d 554 (1940). the defendant had approached a police officer in a car, asked if he wanted a "date," entered the car, and asked if he wanted to drive and talk. The court found this evidence at worst ambiguous as to solicitation and, relying on the insufficiency of the evidence as an alternative ground, reversed the conviction.

Summary of this case from State v. Bennett

In Williams v. United States, 110 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1940), the court referred to the District of Columbia statute which "forbids `any person to invite... any person... in or upon any avenue, street, road, highway, open space, alley, public square, or enclosure in the District of Columbia, to accompany... her... for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose.

Summary of this case from In re Appeal No. 180, Term 1976
Case details for

Williams v. United States

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 26, 1940

Citations

110 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
71 App. D.C. 377

Citing Cases

Graves v. United States

r and specific, there was discussion of money, as well as "lucid description of the services [appellant]…

State v. Bennett

See, Annotation, 77 A.L.R.3d 519, §§ 21(b), 24. The absence of an accompanying profferal of sexual services…