People v. Curtis

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of incest in violating section 285 of the Penal Code, after trial before a jury, defendant appeals. There are also appeals from (1) the order granting probation, and (2) the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Questions:

First:

Was there substantial evidence to support the judgment that defendant was guilty of mcestf

Tes.

The complaining witness, defendant’s 15-year-old daughter, testified that on May 6, 1954, defendant had placed his private parts in her private parts.

Clearly this evidence sustained the finding of the trial jury, and no useful purpose would be served by setting forth additional testimony in support of this revolting offense. We therefore refrain from further discussion of the evidence.

Second:

Did the trial court commit prejudicial error

m

instructing the jury as followsf

“Evidence was introduced in this case for the purpose of showing that Imogene Curtis, upon whom it is charged the defendant committed the act of incest, was a girl of unchaste character. Such evidence was received and may be considered

[626]

by you solely for such bearing as it may have on the question whether or not she gave her consent to the sexual act, if it took place as alleged. If defendant did commit the act upon her as alleged, and if she then bore relationship to him as alleged, even if she consented to the act, that consent is no defense, and if she was of unchaste character, that unchastity is not a defense. If you should find that the evidence establishes the existence of unchastity prior to the alleged event in question, you have a right to infer, if your reason so directs, that there is more likelihood of an unchaste girl consenting to incentuous intercourse than there is of a girl, previously chaste, doing so. And if you should draw that inference and apply it in this case, you may consider it in judging the credibility of said Imogene Curtis as a witness and in weighing her testimony. ’ ’