People v. Grant

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Donald Theodore Grant appeals his conviction, after jury trial, of lewd and lascivious conduct with David, the 10-year-old son of his wife by a previous marriage. We need not detail the defendant’s acts as he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

Grant unmeritoriously contends the trial court erroneously failed to give his proposed instruction:

“Defendant’s Requested Jury Instruction No. 1:

“When determining whether you believe David’s testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, you may consider:

[690]

“1. David’s love for defendant before February 7, 1969.

“2. David’s expectation defendant would take him to his real father or otherwise take care of him.

“3. Mrs. Grant’s statements to Mr. Bass that:

A. David is an excellent liar

B. David is extremely emotional

C. David fabricates many stories and tells them in a convincing way. And,

D. That two years after the stabbing incident, David admitted to Mrs. Grant that he intentionally stabbed the boy.

“4. David’s statements about the stabbing incident.

“5. That David went to bed on February 7, 1969, not knowing defendant would call the police to take David to Hillcrest Receiving Home.

“6. David’s reaction to the presence of police officers on the night of February 7, 1969.

“7. David’s desire not to say anything or behave in any way that might hurt his mother.

“8. David’s testimony and statements to others about:

A. Staying after school on February 7, 1969.

B. The night in the motel with his mother and Eddie Nolte.