People v. Stephens

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1938 No. Crim. 2039Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for child abandonment under Penal Code section 271a, finding that the defendant intentionally failed to support his children while concealing his identity.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of child abandonment.
Whether the transcript of the defendant's preliminary hearing testimony was properly admitted.
Whether the definition of 'abandons' in Penal Code section 271a is equivalent to its meaning in guardianship proceedings.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Substantial evidence was produced to prove the facts heretofore stated and supported the inference which the jury must have drawn that he intended to abandon his children and to cast their maintenance upon the charity of the county.”

“Proof of the corpus delicti to justify evidence of a confession or admission means proof that a crime has been committed. It is not required that proof of defendant's part in it must be first made.”

“Here the word applies to the act of intentionally failing to supply the needs of the child, while in the guardianship cases cited by appellant it is used to describe an act of complete relinquishment of the right of parental control.”

NOTJRSE, P. J.

—The defendant was tried before a jury upon an information charging abandonment of his four minor children contrary to the provisions of section 271a of the Penal Code. A verdict of guilty was followed by a judgment

[69]

and a motion for a new trial which was denied. The appeal is from the judgment.

In the early part of May, 1936, the defendant left his family then consisting of his wife and three children. The fourth child was born about six weeks later. He made no contributions to their support after July 6th of that year, though knowing that they were all in destitute circumstances. The expenses of the birth of the fourth child, and the cost of maintenance of all four were borne by the county of Marin. In the meantime the defendant was gainfully employed and living in San Francisco under an assumed name and with another woman whom he represented to be his wife. The defendant did not take the witness stand, and made no defense to the charge laid.

His grounds of appeal will be taken in order. He complains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Substantial evidence was produced to prove the facts heretofore stated and supported the inference which the jury must have drawn that he intended to abandon his children and to cast their maintenance upon the charity of the county. His statements to the arresting officer were alone sufficient to prove his intention to abandon.

He complains of the admission in evidence of a transcript of his testimony taken at his preliminary hearing before the committing magistrate. He argues that the

corpus delicti

had not been proved before the testimony was read, and that there was no admission in the testimony tending to prove guilt. Proof had been made that the children had been left a charge upon the county in a wholly destitute condition. Proof of the

corpus delicti

to justify evidence of a confession or admission means proof that a crime has been committed. It is not required that proof of defendant's part in it must be first made.

People v. Stephens

AI Brief

NOTJRSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief