## Facts

- Johnson operated a variety theater open to the public.
- The State charged Johnson with keeping a “disorderly house” by employing prostitutes and knowingly permitting them to behave indecently at the theater.
- The prosecution sought to establish both the disorderly character of the premises and Johnson’s knowledge of the alleged indecent conduct.
- Johnson presented testimony from Phillips, a theater watchman.
- Phillips testified he had not observed improper conduct at the theater, but also stated it was not a place where he would take his wife or daughter.
- A jury convicted Johnson, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Johnson appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Johnson knowingly permitted prostitutes to engage in indecent conduct on the premises as required for a disorderly-house conviction.
2. Whether general character evidence about the establishment, including equivocal testimony about respectability, could substitute for proof of the specific prohibited conduct and the proprietor’s knowledge.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court concluded the record, as presented, did not adequately establish that Johnson knowingly permitted the statutorily prohibited indecent conduct.
- The court rejected treating ambiguous “bad character” or respectability evidence as sufficient to satisfy the State’s burden on the knowledge element.

## Legal Principles

- A disorderly-house conviction requires proof that the proprietor knowingly permitted the prohibited conduct; operation or ownership alone is insufficient.
- Evidence of an establishment’s general character may be circumstantial, but it must connect to the statutory elements, including the defendant’s knowledge.
- Equivocal testimony about an establishment being disreputable does not, by itself, prove that specific indecent acts occurred or that the proprietor knowingly allowed them.
- Penal statutes are construed strictly; the State must present proof meeting the statutory requirements rather than relying on moral or reputational inference.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the State’s evidence did not sufficiently prove that Johnson knowingly permitted indecent conduct by prostitutes at his theater, and general disrepute evidence could not replace proof of the required mens rea and specific prohibited conduct.


Johnson v. State, 24 S.W. 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1893)