People v. Stanley

California Court of Appeal Mar 4, 1947 No. Crim. 4088Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a general objection to evidence is insufficient if the evidence is admissible for any purpose, that testimony regarding a defendant's physical condition outside the relevant timeframe is properly excluded, and that minors are victims rather than accomplices in prosecutions for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, thus requiring no corroboration of their testimony.

Issues

Whether a general objection to the admission of evidence is sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if the evidence is admissible for any purpose.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the defendant's physical condition outside the date of the alleged offense.
Whether the testimony of minors in a prosecution for contributing to the delinquency of a minor requires corroboration.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“if a general objection to the introduction of evidence is overruled such objection cannot avail the objector on appeal unless it appears that such evidence was inadmissible for any purpose whatsoever.”

“The offense consisted in furnishing the alcoholic beverage to the minor and not in the infant’s knowledge of its alcoholic content.”

“corroboration of the minor’s testimony is unnecessary since in such case the minor is regarded as a victim and not as an accomplice”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violating section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (contributing to the delinquency of a minor), after trial before a jury, defendant appeals.

The testimony discloses that defendant operated a cafe in San Luis Obispo County known as “Ducky’s” and that she had a permit to sell intoxicating beverages. On the evening of June 7, 1946, at about 8 o’clock, Joe Angelo, age 15, Leroy McLaury, age 15, Dorothy Buss, age 15, and Frieda

[360]

Voltz, age 17, entered defendant’s bar and sat at a table. Joe Angelo and Leroy McLaury went to the bar where they purchased from defendant two beers, a Tom Collins and a coca-cola. The boys took the drinks back to the table where each boy drank a beer, Miss Voltz drank the Tom Collins and Miss Buss drank the coca-cola. After having consumed their first drinks defendant sold the boys two additional beers, two drinks of whiskey and a whiskey sour. The boys drank the beer and the whiskey and Miss Voltz drank the whiskey sour. Following their sojourn at “Ducky’s” the minors repaired to the home of Bev. John L. Mildrum, at which time a Bible class was organized.

Defendant urges reversal of the judgment on four propositions which will be stated and answered hereunder consecutively :

First:

The trial court committed prejudicial erroi in permitting Reverend John L. Mildrum to testify as follows:

“Q. And at that time did you notice anything unusual about any of the children? A. Yes, I did.

“Q. What did you notice about them? A. Well, some of them were very hilarious.

“Q. Which ones? A. Well, that would

include—i

“Mr. Renetzky: I object to this as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

“A. The ones that

I-

“The Court: Well, I think it is corroborative. That is what you are offering it for?

“Mr. Harris: Both for corroboration and also to show the effect.

People v. Stanley

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief