
    LIEGOIS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 25, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 507) — “Accomplice.”
    The term “accomplice” signifies a guilty associate in crime, and is strictly defined as one who is associated with others in the commission of a crime; the test being whether the alleged accomplice could be indicted and punished for the crime for which the accused is being tried.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law. Cent. Dig. §§ 1082-1096; Dec. Dig. § 507.
    
    Por other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 75-79; vol. 8, p. 7561.]
    2. Criminal Law (§. 507) —■ Accomplice — Keeper op Disorderly House.
    Where accused was charged with knowingly permitting a house of which she was lessee to be disorderly, a prostitute to whom accused sub-rented a room, which the tenant used for prostitution, was not an accomplice, since such inmate could not have been convicted of the same crime of which accused was charged.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1082-1096; Dec. Dig. § 507.]
    Appeal from Wichita County Court; C. B. Felder, Judge.
    Mrs. J. B. Liegois was convicted as a lessee of a house which she knowingly permitted to be disorderly, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. P. Weeks, of Wichita Palls, for appellant. T. R. Boone, Co. Atty., of Wichita Palls, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted as a lessee of a house which she knowingly permitted to be kept as a bawdy-house.

The evidence would show that J. H. Weideman was the owner of what is known-as the Gem rooming house in Wichita Palls, and he leased it to appellant for 12 months at $45 per month, and then at $47.50 per month. Appellant furnished the rooming house, and let it to various tenants at the rate of $30 per week; one of her tenants being Miss Jessie Miller. The state used Miss Miller as a witness, and she testified to renting the place from appellant, and then by Miss Miller’s testimony and the testimony of other witnesses sought to prove that the house was run as a bawdyhouse during Mrs. Miller’s occupancy. Appellant insists that this made Mrs. Miller an accomplice in law, and the court erred in not so instructing the jury at his request. In the American & English Encyclopedia of Law, the rule is said to be: “The term ‘accomplice’ signifies in law a guilty associate in crime, and is strictly defined as one who is associated with others in the commission of a crime; all being guilty. The general test by which to determine whether one is an accomplice is the inquiry: Could such person be indicted and punished for the crime for which the accused is being tried? If he could be indicted and punished, he is an accomplice; otherwise he is not an accomplice.” Tested by this rule Mrs. Miller is not an accomplice of appellant, for she could not be prosecuted and convicted of the offense for which appellant was tried. A great number of cases are cited by the Encyclopedia, among which are Peeler v. State, 3 Tex. App. 533; Ham v. State, 4 Tex. App. 645; Watson v. State, 9 Tex. App. 237; Lawrence v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 114, 32 S. W. 530; Hamilton v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 372, 37 S. W. 431; Parker v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 119, 49 S. W. 80; Stone v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 575, 85 S. W. 808—the case against Stone being a bawdy-house case, and this court holds in that case: “The testimony shows that the witness was an inmate of the house, and that appellant was the owner, * * * and the manager and the controller. * * * Hence the witness could not be an accomplice, since a prosecution would not lie against her under the indictment here presented.” It is true that Mrs. Miller might be prosecuted and convicted for keeping and running a disorderly or bawdyhouse; but this was not the offense for which appellant was being prosecuted. Appellant could not be convicted for keeping and running,the house; neither could Mrs. Miller have been convicted for the offense for which appellant was being prosecuted. They both, perhaps, committed offenses against the law, but separate and distinct offenses.

There are two bills of exception in the record in regard to the introduction of testimony; but they are so vague and indefinite we could not pass on the questions sought to be presented without turning to the statement of facts, and by so doing,we find the court committed no error. Mrs. Miller and Elizabeth Miller were inmates of the house in question, and any legitimate, testimony which tended to show that they were prostitutes, and appellant was aware of that fact, was properly admitted.

Special charge No. 1 was fully covered by the court’s main charge; while charge No. 2 is not the law, and should not have been given.

The judgment is affirmed.  