People v. Huston

ASHBURN, J.

Convicted of violation (1) of section 288, Penal Code, commission of lewd and lascivious acts upon a 10-year-old girl, and (2) of section 288a, Penal Code, cunnilingus (defined in 25 C.J.S., p. 28), defendant appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. He was also charged with and admitted a prior conviction and imprisonment for violation of section 288. Appellant was adjudged a potential sexual psychopath and committed to Atascadero State Hospital for observation, with the result that the superintendent and medical director reported that he is a sexual psychopath who would not benefit by treatment in a state hospital and who is a menace to the health and safety of others. Probation was denied and defendant sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law, the sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction upon the ground that the testimony of the victim, the 10-year-old girl, is inherently improbable. This argument will not lie except where there exists “either a physical impossibility that they [the witness’ statements] are true, or their falsity [is] apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.”

(People

v.

Huston,

21 Cal.2d 690, 693 [134 P.2d 758].) So far as physical impossibility is concerned, counsel would have us take judicial

[672]

notice of matters that are best determined by the composite knowledge and experience of 12 jurors. That we cannot do. In other respects the argument invites us to weigh inferences in disregard of the rule of

People

v.

Newland,

15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778], which requires a court of review to “ ‘assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict. ’ If the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict of the jury, the opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination of the jury.” The testimony of the complaining witness in a case of this kind does not require corroboration.