People v. Stice

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 1958 No. Crim. 6164Published

Before: Vallee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the trial court correctly excluded impeachment evidence regarding specific acts of unchastity, properly admitted a voluntary confession despite a delay in arraignment, and correctly determined that sexual psychopathy proceedings are not reviewable on an appeal from a motion for a new trial.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in striking cross-examination testimony regarding specific acts of unchastity by the child witnesses.
Whether a confession is inadmissible if obtained during a delay in taking the defendant before a magistrate.
Whether the trial court's finding of sexual psychopathy is reviewable on an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Violation of the mandate that a defendant be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay (Pen. Code, § 825) without coercion does not render a confession inadmissible.”

“Sexual psychopathy proceedings are not criminal actions but special proceedings of a civil nature.”

VALLÉE, J.

By information defendant was charged in two counts with violations of Penal Code, section 288. In a jury trial he was convicted on both counts. His motion for a new trial was denied. The court found defendant is a potential sexual psychopath and committed him to a state hospital for observation. Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

No purpose would be served in detailing the revolting facts.Suffice it to say the evidence supports the verdict as to both counts. Defendant first attacks the credibility of the two children who testified against him. He says they lied. Since the jury impliedly found they had not, that question is' not open to review.

’ On cross-examination of Junior, the child named in count I of the information, he was asked whether he had ever had “an experience like this before.” He said he had not. He was also asked on cross if some two years before he had not committed an improper act with a young girl. The boy answered, “No.” On cross-examination, Kathy, the child named in count II, was asked whether “anything like this” had happened to her with anyone else, to which she replied, “No.” On cross Kathy was also asked whether at some time prior to the time the acts charged against defendant were alleged to have been committed her aunt had asked her why she told “these stories” about defendant and whether she had said “I don’t know why.” The answer was “no” to both questions. Kathy was also asked whether she had not told her aunt at that time that “Daddy had told me to say those things” and that “Daddy has played with me,” to both of which questions Kathy answered, “No.”

On motion of the People the foregoing testimony of Junior and Kathy was stricken and the jury instructed to entirely disregard it. Defendant asserts error. The ruling was correct. In

People

Whalen,

70 Cal.App.2d 142 [160 P.2d 560], a prosecution under sections 288 and 288a of the Penal Code, this court held that a witness for the People may

[613]

not be impeached on cross-examination by questions as to specific acts of unehastity.

People v. Stice

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief