People v. Redden

PEEK, J.

By indictment the defendant, John Redden, was charged with violations of sections 261, 288 and 288a of the Penal Code, involving his 12-year-old stepdaughter. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction, which was entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict finding him guilty on all counts, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Pour contentions are made: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct; (3) that the trial court erred in the admission of certain testimony; and (4) that the defendant was represented by incompetent counsel. Prom our examination of the record, we conclude that defendant’s contentions are without merit and that the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

It does not appear necessary to set forth the evidence in detail. It is sufficient to note that the prosecutrix described in great detail the various acts with which the defendant was charged. Her testimony was corroborated in part by her mother, a neighbor, and the doctor who examined her following defendant’s arrest. While it is true that the evidence is not without conflict and that much of it is open to question, nevertheless it was sufficient, if believed by the jury (which it obviously was), to support the conviction.

Defendant’s next contention relates to certain acts of misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney. Counsel concedes that while it would be difficult to say that any one act would compel a reversal, yet when all are considered collectively the record discloses a course of conduct by the district attorney which deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

He first attacks the action of the district attorney at the outset of the trial in using the word “sordid” in reference to the statement by the prosecutrix to her mother regarding defendant’s actions. After a review of the evidence, it hardly can be doubted but that this characterization was entirely accurate. However, even if not, it cannot be said

[278]

to go beyond legitimate comment by the district attorney

(People

v.