People v. Evans

California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 1952 No. Crim. 854Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence of similar sexual acts with the prosecutrix's sister was admissible to show the defendant's disposition and intent, and that the district attorney's conduct did not constitute reversible error. The court reversed the conviction on count seven due to insufficient evidence but affirmed the convictions on all other counts.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the defendant's sexual acts with the prosecutrix's sister.
Whether the district attorney committed prejudicial misconduct during the cross-examination of witnesses.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction on count seven of the information.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that under the circumstances shown, the conduct of the defendant with the sister of the prosecutrix, witnessed by her, is relevant to the issues in the case, under the exception to the general rule, and was properly admitted.”

“The evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction on the charges set forth in count seven of the information and the judgment as to that count is reversed.”

MUSSELL, J.

Defendant was charged in an information with nine counts of statutory rape of Mary Frances Evans, his stepdaughter. A jury trial resulted in verdicts of guilty on all counts and a recommendation of imprisonment in the state prison. Defendant’s application for probation was denied and the court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently with the sentence pronounced on the first count contained in the information.

Appellant’s contentions on appeal are that the court erred in admitting testimony of other offenses and that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct.

At the time of the commission of the offense alleged in the first count of the information, Mary Frances Evans, who was born August 14, 1934, was almost 14 years of age and was living in a four-room house in Porterville with her mother and the defendant. Mary testified that the defendant accomplished many acts of sexual intercourse with her commencing some time in 1948, and that all of these acts of intercourse

[126]

occurred with her at night in the home; that she had been sharing a room with her sister, Artie; that they had separate beds and that she had seen the defendant in bed with her sister several times. Except as to the charge contained in count seven of the information, the dates when these acts occurred were fixed by the prosecutrix with reference to a diary which she kept of events occurring during the time involved.

Artie Bell Evans testified that she was born June 8, 1931; that she had lived with her mother, her sister, Mary, and the defendant at the home in Porterville for about 14 years; that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her several times at the family residence; that these acts of intercourse first occurred when she was about 13 or 14 years of age and continued for about a year.

Defendant’s principal contention is that the court erred in permitting the sister of the prosecutrix to testify, over objection, as to acts of sexual intercourse with the defendant. The general rule is that evidence of such similar acts with other persons is ordinarily inadmissible. However, there is a well recognized exception to the rule when the evidence in question is relevant to the issues in the ease and is otherwise admissible.

People v. Evans

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief