Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hart

Supreme Court of Arizona

February 21, 1944

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant,
v.
JAMES GRANT HART, Appellee

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Arthur T. LaPrade, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, Mr. Thomas J. Croaff, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Harold R. Scoville, County Attorney, and Mr. J. V. McCrory, Deputy County Attorney, for Appellant.

Mr. Thomas Glenn, and Mr. J. B. Sumter, for Appellee.

OPINION

Page 212

[61 Ariz. 192] STANFORD, J.

Appellee was charged by information filed by the County Attorney of Maricopa County on February 12, 1943, with the crime of pandering, a felony committed as follows, to-wit:

"The said James Grant Hart on or about the 22nd day of January, 1943, and before the filing of this information at and in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously place one Marta Bach, a female person in the charge and custody of a male person for immoral purposes; contrary to the form, force and effect of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Arizona."

On the 20th day of February, 1943, the defendant filed in the Superior Court his demand for Bill of Particulars "for the reason that the information fails to inform him of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable him to prepare his defense or to give him such information as he is entitled to under the Constitution of this State," and on that date counsel stipulated and agreed "that the reporter's transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing shall constitute and suffice a sufficient bill of particulars." Also on the 20th day of February, upon the application of the County Attorney, he was authorized to furnish a Supplemental Bill of Particulars to be furnished on or before the 25th day of the month, said Supplemental Bill of Particulars to be in addition to the reporter's transcript heretofore stipulated to constitute the original Bill of Particulars.

[61 Ariz. 193] On the 20th day of February defendant made a motion to quash the information "upon the ground that it appears from the Bill of Particulars furnished under the provisions of Section 153 of the Code [Rules] of Criminal Procedure [Code 1939, § 44-712] that the particulars stated do not constitute the offense charged in the information."

On the 25th day of February the additional Bill of Particulars was furnished by the County Attorney, reading in part as follows:

"... that the defendant Hart went to the room of Marta Bach, 218, and told the said Marta Bach that he had a $25.00 date for her in room 220;

"That the said Marta Bach went to room 220 and was admitted by the Lieutenant in whose room arrangements were then and there made between the said Marta Bach and the said Lieutenant for the act of sexual intercourse and the payment

Page 213

therefore. That the said Lieutenant did not have $25.00 in cash, so requested the defendant come to the room, which he did, and at that time and place the defendant cashed a check for the said Lieutenant in the sum of $25.00, which said $25.00 the Lieutenant gave to the said Marta Bach in the presence of the said defendant. The defendant then left the room and an act of intercourse ensued between the Lieutenant and the said Marta Bach; and subsequently a second act of intercourse occurred between the parties for which the Lieutenant paid the said Marta Bach ten more dollars;

"That by the above acts the said defendant James Grant Hart did then and there place her, the said Marta Bach, a female person, in the charge and custody of one Lieutenant Winfield H. Samuels for immoral purposes."

On the 27th day of February, 1943, the defendant filed a motion to quash the information upon the ground that it appears that it does not charge the defendant with the commission of an offense.

[61 Ariz. 194] The Superior Court, upon denying the motion of the defendant to strike the Supplemental Bill of Particulars, did grant the motion to quash the information upon the ground and for the reason that the Supplemental Bill of Particulars furnished disclosed no offense was committed within the provisions of Section ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.