People v. Reynolds

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Choremi

    94 N.E.2d 81 (N.Y. 1950)   Cited 3 times
    In People v. Choremi (301 N.Y. 417, 420) the Court of Appeals said: "Even assuming that one may `loiter' — as that word is used in the criminal statutes under consideration * * * — in one's own home, the record is devoid of any proof of such act."

    But even if we were to conclude that there was proof of "loitering", we find it even more difficult to spell out evidence that defendant loitered "for the purpose of inducing, enticing, or procuring" anyone to have sex relations with her. Quite apart from other considerations, the telephone call was from Blavier to defendant and the alleged appointment was arranged by Blavier and proffered by her to defendant. In addition, the utter weakness of the case, its thin and meager nature, is emphasized and accentuated by comparing it with People v. Reynolds ( 300 N.Y. 616), also a prosecution for vagrancy, though based upon a different clause of subdivision 4. In the Reynolds case ( supra), the conviction depended not only upon wire-tapped telephone conversations but upon evidence by the police that they kept the premises in question under surveillance, that they saw the men and women who had been in the apartment pair off and repair to bedrooms where the lights went off shortly after their entry, that they found them in compromising positions when they made arrests, and that the defendant stated that she was "responsible for everything that took place."