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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. LEE LEWIS COHEN (12/03/87)

December 3, 1987

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE,
v.
LEE LEWIS COHEN, APPELLANT. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. TERRY GEORGE RUGER, APPELLANT.



Court of Common Pleas. Clinton County, Criminal Nos. 58-86, 59-86, Brown, J.

COUNSEL

Peter P. Griffin, Public Defender, Lock Haven, for appellant in 309.

Harold N. Fitzkee, Jr., York, for appellant in 310.

Merritt E. McKnight, District Attorney, Lock Haven, for Com., appellee.

Before Olszewski, Del Sole, and Johnson, JJ.

Author: Olszewski

[ 371 Pa. Super. Page 560]

OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

This is a consolidated appeal from the trial court's judgment of sentence following a jury trial at which appellants were convicted of prostitution and related offenses in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5902(b)(1). For the reasons stated below we affirm the order of the trial court.

Appellants were the owners and operators of the Taj Mahal II, a massage parlor. They were brought to trial on the charge of promoting prostitution of another person by owning, controlling, managing or supervising a house of prostitution. The basis for the charge was the giving of a full body massage by nude female masseuses. The massage included a "hand release", a euphemistic term for masturbating the male clients of the establishment. Following appellants conviction of promoting prostitution, post-trial motions were filed and denied. This appeal followed.

[ 371 Pa. Super. Page 561]

Appellants raise three issues for our review: (1) did the lower court err in finding that 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5902 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the instant case; (2) was it prorer for the court to deny appellant Cohen the right to testify concerning hes reliance on legal information and advice which he had received before entering into the "massage" business; and (3) was the trial court correct in its decision to permit introduction of the testimony of an employee as an admission against appellants even though appellants were not present when the statement was made.

Prostitution is prohibited in Pennsylvania bu 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5902, Prostitution and Related Offenses. 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.