People v. Hunt

PULLEN, P. J.

Appellant was charged with and found guilty of the crime defined by section 288 of the Penal Code, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment of conviction, he prosecutes this appeal.

He first contends the evidence does not support the verdict. The information alleges that appellant committed certain lewd and lascivious acts upon prosecutrix, a nine-year-old girl, with the intent then and there of arousing, appealing to and gratifying the lust and passions and sexual desires of the child

and

the defendant.

[286]

Appellant now claims that, having charged in the conjunctive rather than in the disjunctive, as is the language of the statute, it was necessary to prove that the acts gratified the desires both of the girl

and

the defendant. In this appellant is in error, the gist of the crime being the intent with which the act was done and not its accomplishment.

(People

v.

Bronson,

69 Cal. App. 83 [230 Pac. 213];

People

v.

McCurdy,

60 Cal. App. 499 [213 Pac. 59].) There was ample evidence in the record to support the implied finding of the jury on the question of intent.

Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient, in that it discloses that the appellant was guilty of certain sex perversions, as defined by section 288a of the Penal Code. While there is ample evidence in the record to have supported the conviction of appellant, had he been charged under section 288a of the Penal Code, nevertheless, there is also ample testimony to establish the commission by him of the offense embraced within the provisions of section 288 of the Penal Code. A similar contention was made in the ease of