People v. Siegel

California Court of Appeal Dec 5, 1934 No. Crim. 1403Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for violating Penal Code section 286, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the defendant failed to preserve objections to the admission of evidence.

Issues

Whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence regarding the defendant's capacity to consent due to intoxication.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding a co-defendant's statement.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the record of the defendant's prior felony conviction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jury having found the defendant guilty, we are bound thereby to hold that the defendant, as a matter o£ fact, was not so intoxicated as to have been unable to give consent.”

“It is too late to raise such a question for the first time on appeal.”

“Appellant, having admitted his conviction of a former felony, we do not perceive how he was prejudiced by the admission of the record.”

PLUMMER, J.

The appellant and one Clifford Anderson were indicted by the grand jury of the county of Mendocino and charged with the crime set forth and specified in section 286 of the Penal Code.

The record shows that Clifford Anderson was the actor at the invitation of the defendant Siegel and Siegel was the one acted upon by the defendant Anderson. The record does not show that Anderson has ever been brought to trial. The defendant, upon trial, was found guilty of the crime charged in the indictment and from the judgment pronounced upon the verdict of the jury this appeal is prosecuted. Two propositions are presented for consideration: 1. That the verdict is contrary to the evidence; 2. That the court erred during the trial in the admission of evidence.

The testimony is of such a character and the facts detailed by the testimony are so repulsive that we refrain from quoting the testimony in this opinion, but will state that we have carefully read the same and that it shows the following circumstances :

That the two defendants were discovered by the witnesses Harry Newberg and D. R. Henderson in the act of committing the very crime made punishable by section 286 of the Penal Code; that the testimony of Newberg sets forth facts from which the jury could not reasonably avoid the conclusion that the act of penetration was complete. The testimony of the witness Newberg is more direct and specific than that of the witness Henderson, but is corroborated by the witness Henderson in all of its general circumstances. Some attempt was made to show that the witness Henderson was somewhat under the influence of intoxicating liquor. So far as we have been able to discover no attempt was made to likewise impeach the testimony of the witness Newberg.

[622]

The acts constituting the offense were committed a short distance from the place where a dance was being held during the evening.

It is contended on the part of the appellant that he was so intoxicated as to be unable to give consent. In this particular, the court instructed the jury that if they believed the defendant was so under the influence of intoxicating liquor as not to be able to give his consent to the act in question, then the jury should return a verdict of not guilty.

People v. Siegel

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief