People v. Nichols

California Court of Appeal Nov 8, 1934 No. Crim. 1823Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that any potential errors regarding the exclusion of evidence or the district attorney's improper remarks were not prejudicial because the evidence against the defendant was sufficiently corroborated.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding cross-examination regarding the complaining witness's knowledge of the wrongfulness of the acts.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the complaining witness's whereabouts to impeach his credibility.
Whether the district attorney's remarks regarding a prior trial constituted prejudicial misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“any alleged error in the exclusion of said testimony was not prejudicial as the testimony of the boy was sufficiently corroborated.”

“It is a sufficient answer to point out that the boy’s testimony could not be impeached merely by showing other wrongful acts.”

“The foregoing statement of the district attorney was therefore improper, but we do not believe that the making of said statement constituted prejudicial misconduct requiring a reversal.”

[100]

SPENCE, J.

The defendant' was charged in two separate informations, the first alleging a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code and a violation of section 288a of the Penal Code and the second alleging a violation of section 286 of the Penal Code. The cases were consolidated and tried before one jury which found the defendant guilty of all of the charges. From the final judgments of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

The complaining witness was a boy of the age of 13 years. His testimony showed that he first met the defendant while occupying a seat next to defendant in a motion picture theater on Market Street in San Francisco; that defendant struck up a conversation with him and while discussing the possibility of getting him a job, defendant placed his overcoat across the boy’s lap, and committed a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code; that after the show, defendant took him for an automobile ride to San Jose, where defendant took him to an eating place and thereafter to another motion picture show in San Jose, where he again committed a similar violation of said section 288; that on the return trip to San Francisco, defendant stopped his car under some trees and there committed a violation of section 288a of the Penal Code; that about a week later, defendant drove to a point near the boy’s home, picked the boy up and took him to defendant’s home, where he committed a violation of said section 288 on a couch in the front room and also committed a violation of said section 288a on the bed in the bedroom; that about a week later defendant again met the boy, took him to defendant’s home, and there, upon a bed, committed a violation of section 286 of the Penal Code.

The boy was subsequently picked up by the police at about 2:30 in the morning and finally related his story in detail concerning said offenses. He was given a medical examination and it was found that sodomy had been practiced upon him. When the police went to defendant’s home, defendant admitted that he knew the boy, that he had taken him out and that he had given him money. Defendant further stated to the police that he knew the boy’s father very well, that he was an old friend of the family and had worked with the boy’s father on some C. W. A. project. Upon the

People v. Nichols

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief