People v. Clark

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment after trial before the court without a jury, finding defendant guilty of violating section 288 of the Penal Code, he appeals.

Facts: The prosecutrix, Autumn Landers, the 11-year-old stepdaughter of defendant, testified, in substance, that during the period November 15, 1962, through May 22 of the following year defendant on three separate dates took her into his bedroom and had sexual intercourse with her. Defendant denied having sexually molested her at any time.

Question:

Did the trial court err in restricting the scope of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the examination of defense witnesses called to impeach her?

Yes.

These rules are here applicable:

(1) In this type of case the broadest latitude in cross-examination and production of rebuttal evidence is required.

(People

v.

Scholl,

225 Cal.App.2d 558, 562-563 [8a, 9] [37 Cal.Rptr. 475] [hearing denied by the Supreme Court].)

[505]

(2) Although generally the

character

of a witness may not be attacked by evidence of specific wrongful acts (Code Civ. Proc., § 2051

1

), this rule is not controlling where the inquiry goes beyond character and involves a basic fact in issue. Accordingly, evidence contradicting the testimony of a witness, even if it consists of proof of other wrongful acts, is proper if it is relevant to an issue in the case.

2

(People

v.

Westek,

31 Cal.2d 469, 480 [8] [190 P.2d 9];