People v. Hood

TOBRINER, J.

Convicted after trial by jury of the felonies of assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220) and oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a) by force and against the victim’s will, appellant now urges an alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict as well as errors in the court’s instructions. Appellant gives us no specific references to the transcript to show in what respects such failure matures. We see no advantage in a detailed narration of the sordid circumstances of the crimes; we shall point out briefly that the evidence amply upholds the verdict and that the court properly instructed, and did not mislead, the jury.

The attack occurred during the early morning hours of November 15, 1960, when the victim, a 19-year-old girl, a member of the Women’s Army Corps on leave in San Francisco, waited at the Greyhound Depot for her bus. On the pretext of making a phone call for him, appellant induced the girl to accompany him to a ladies lounge on the third floor of the depot. There he threatened to gratify his sexual desires by intercourse; he exposed himself; he tried to force her to copulate orally; he lay upon his victim and attempted intercourse ; he orally copulated the girl’s vagina. In the course of this abhorrent conduct appellant struck the girl; he threatened her with a knife; she resisted, scratching him and screaming. At the end of the episode appellant offered her $20, which she refused; she ran down the stairs, frightened and hysterical.

[46]

Scratches on appellant’s face and stains of semen on the girl’s clothing, the man’s trousers, the couch where the attack occurred and on the floor of the lounge serve as evidentiarycorroboration of the criminal conduct. Appellant neither testified nor offered any evidence on his own behalf.

The above uncontradicted evidence clearly sustains the verdict. It demonstrates beyond doubt the commission of the charged crimes

(People

v.

Nye

(1951) 38 Cal.2d 34, 37 [237 P.2d 1];

People

v.