People v. Denningham

California Court of Appeal Oct 29, 1947 No. Crim. 4092Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who commits a crime while voluntarily intoxicated is criminally liable for his actions, and that the trial court is not bound by expert psychiatric testimony regarding insanity when other evidence supports a finding of sanity and criminal intent.

Issues

Whether a defendant is criminally liable for burglary committed while voluntarily intoxicated.
Whether the trial court erred in determining the defendant's sanity based on physician reports by stipulation.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for burglary with intent to commit an act of sex perversion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“in the same decision it was announced that a crime committed as a result of voluntarily using intoxicants is a wilful act.”

“the court was not obliged to accept such testimony but could disregard it or give to it the weight to which it is entitled.”

“Since the act inhibited by section 288a is a felony, appellant’s entry into the home is a burglary.”

MOORE, P. J.

Appellant was accused by amended information of burglary in two counts, namely: (1) entry into a residence to commit rape; (2) entry to commit an act of sex perversion (Pen. Code, § 288a). To both counts he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The parties stipulated: (a) to waive a jury trial; (b) that the court “may determine the issue (insanity) on the reports of the physicians on file. ’

’

The decision was not guilty under count one, guilty as to count two and that defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the offense. Probation having been denied, he was sentenced for the term prescribed by law.

Since sentence was pronounced appellant has reposed in the county jail, from which without aid of counsel he has prosecuted this appeal. Inasmuch as he has made no argument in support of his contention that the judgment is contrary to law and the evidence, in view of the asserted state of his mind at the time of the crime a study of the entire record has been made.

The unfortunate man, though springing from a worthy family and though fairly well educated in the fundamentals and trained as a radio technician (at which trade he has toiled for 25 years), fell victim to the inordinate use of alcohol. To his first wife three children were born. She divorced him in 1939. His second marriage in 1941 was followed by his development of the curse of sex perversion, as a result of which he alienated the attachment of his wife who had left him some time prior to the date of his crime, to wit, April 20, 1946. On that date he left his hotel in downtown Los Angeles about 7:30 p. m. in search of his wife who with him had formerly lived near Main Street on East 45th Street. Having ascertained that she had left no forwarding address he visited two nearby cafes, at which he drank three glasses of wine. He testified that he -had no memory of any other occurrence that evening except the application of handcuffs by the police and his being booked.

Having admitted her husband about 12:30 a. m. the prosecutrix returned to her bed while her spouse entered his bathtub in the adjoining room. While lying asleep on her stomach she felt a hand touch her shoulders and caress her neck and a face touch her cheek. When the hand went under the cov

[119]

People v. Denningham

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief