Legal Opinion
Rose v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 4, 1987No. 85-111PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
Appellant Rose appeals1 his conviction of solicitation for lewd and immoral purposes, D.C.Code § 22-2701 (1985 Supp.), on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient and the statute is unconstitutionally vague. We agree the evidence was insufficient, and do not reach the constitutional claim; accordingly, we reverse.
I
On the afternoon of November 28, 1984, around 4:30 p.m., Rose was standing on a corner at Vermont Avenue and N Street, N.W., a high prostitution area. Rose, who is a male, was wearing a black jacket, black leotards, black “mini-skirt type undergarment…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Brown v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- Davis v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Hattie Mae Ricks v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Hawthorne v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Byrd v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Conley v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Jonathan Dawkins v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
- Moten v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Thompson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.