People v. Karman

VALLÉE, J.

Defendant was convicted of abortion by a jury. He appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

During April, 1955, defendant was employed by the Clinical School of the Psychology Department of the University of California at Los Angeles and was working for a doctorate in psychology. He was not licensed to practice medicine.

About two months before April 6, 1955, Joyce told her

[803]

husband, Ben, she was pregnant. They discussed an abortion. Ben and Patricia, a friend of Joyce who saw her just before she (Joyce) met defendant, testified Joyce appeared to be in good health and not suffering from any illness or ailment. On April 6, in a motel room, defendant inserted a speculum and a nutcracker into Joyce with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage. She paid him $150. Ben took Joyce to St. Joseph’s Hospital on April 8. Joyce was taken to General Hospital on April 13. She died on April 21.

Dr. Moss examined Joyce on April 8. His diagnosis was “an infected criminal abortion.’’ She still had the fetus within her. It had been dead a little while. While in the hospital she expelled it. She was transferred to General Hospital for specialized treatment. An autopsy was had. The autopsy surgeon testified the cause of Joyce’s death was bronchial pneumonia due to abortion.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not questioned. The first specification of error is that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in the parts of his argument to the jury to be discussed. A photograph taken at the autopsy was in evidence. Referring to the photograph, the district attorney said, “you can look at it up in the jury room if you are so inclined—it’s an autopsy picture—I’m not going to show it to you because some people don’t like to see things like that-—she was 26 years old April 6th. She was a girl in good health. She was pregnant. She wanted to do something about having an abortion for this pregnancy. ” We find nothing improper in the statement. Shortly thereafter the district attorney said: “Frankly, I don’t know how you feel about this matter of abortion—it is a matter of difference of opinion. Some people say well, people can’t afford it, it’s all right to have an abortion. Some people say if the woman’s health won’t stand it it’s all right to have an abortion. Our law says it’s all right to have an abortion if her health is of such nature she can’t have a baby. Some people think abortions are all right. Some people are absolutely against all of them. If you want to know the truth, I’m pretty much against all abortions myself, I think it’s a terrible thing for a girl to be talked into this. ’ ’ It was of course improper for the district attorney to express his personal belief as to all abortions. However, there was no assignment of misconduct or request that the court admonish the jury to disregard the statement, and it appears to have been innocuous and far from prejudicial. The