People v. Aleshire

McCOMB, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial following a judgment, of guilty of violating section 288 of the Penal Code, after trial before the court without a jury.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the People (respondent) the essential facts are:

In May, 1948, defendant took a female child of the age of 7 years into his dark room where he developed photographic negatives. The room was dark and the child was dressed in her sleepers. He placed her on a high stool, sucked her navel and placed her hand upon his private parts.

Questions Presented for Determination

First:

Is the evidence insufficient to sustain the judgment because the testimony of the prosecutrix is inherently

improbable?

This question must be answered in the negative. The law is settled that the prosecutrix’ testimony in support of

[508]

a charge of violating section 288 of the Penal Code need not be corroborated.

(People

v.

Carlson,

73 Cal.App.2d 933, 935 [167 P.2d 812].)

In the present case the prosecuting witness gave direct evidence of each of the facts set forth above. This testimony constituted substantial evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment. Conflicting evidence, uncertainties in the manner of testimony and similar matters were for the determination of the trier of fact whose conclusion supported by substantial evidence as in the instant case is binding upon an appellate court.

(People

v.

Pianezzi,

42 Cal.App.2d 270, 277 [108 P.2d 685].)

Likewise the question of whether the prosecuting witness was testifying as to facts of her own knowledge or on coaching by her mother was to be determined by the trier of fact.