People v. Arcia

California Court of Appeal Apr 20, 1948 No. Crim. 710Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not err in determining that a six-year-old child was a competent witness, as the record supported the conclusion that the child was capable of receiving impressions and relating facts truthfully.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that a six-year-old child was a competent witness.
Whether there was sufficient corroboration of the defendant's confession.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The last cited section means nothing more than that if a child under ten years of age appears to the trial judge to be competent, i.e., to have the capacity to receive impressions and to relate them truthfully, he becomes a competent witness.”

“It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that this boy was not a competent witness or that the court erred in permitting him to testify.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty by a jury and has appealed from the judgment.

The offense is alleged to have occurred on June 6, 1947, and the victim is a boy who became 6 years old on July 2, 1947. The boy’s mother had left for Indiana on June 3, 1947, and he was living with his aunt in a small hotel in San Diego of which she was the manager. The defendant also lived at this hotel and the acts in question occurred while he was giving this boy a bath. The boy immediately reported the matter to his aunt, and she examined his body and later testified as to what she saw. The aunt wrote about the matter to the boy’s mother, who was having an operation at the time, and nothing further was done until the mother’s return to San Diego about the middle of August. She at once took the matter up with the officers and an investigation was started which resulted in the bringing of this action.

When interviewed by an investigator for the district attorney’s office the defendant at first denied he had done these acts but said that he was guilty. Later, at the district attorney’s office in the presence of various officers and the boy, he made a statement which was taken down in shorthand in which he confessed to the acts in detail, telling a story which is practically identical with that told by the boy. Shortly thereafter he was taken into the municipal court where, under oath, he made a similar statement. Both of these statements were received in evidence. At the trial the defendant took the stand and in reply to the only material question asked him, which was as to whether or not he had done the acts with which he was here charged, he replied: “I did not.” On cross-examination, he admitted having made the previous statements, said that he was not telling the truth when he testified at the preliminary hearing, and stated that his only reason for having so testified at that time was that he was confused, that he was not familiar with the courts or the laws, and that he did not know what to say or “how to better myself for it.” During this cross-examination he fully confirmed the boy’s story of what had occurred in all respects

[129]

with the exception that he denied having committed the particular acts constituting this offense.

People v. Arcia

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief