People v. Stice

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 1958 No. Crim. 6164Published

Before: Vallee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for lewd and lascivious acts and the order committing him to a state hospital as a sexual psychopath, finding no error in the admission of his confession, the exclusion of impeachment evidence, or the denial of a psychiatric examination for the witnesses.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in striking cross-examination testimony regarding specific acts of unchastity of the child witnesses.
Whether a confession obtained during a period of detention prior to arraignment is inadmissible absent coercion.
Whether an unlawful arrest precludes prosecution for a criminal offense.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to have child witnesses examined by a psychiatrist.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In People v. Whalen, 70 Cal.App.2d 142 [160 P.2d 560], a prosecution under sections 288 and 288a of the Penal Code, this court held that a witness for the People may not be impeached on cross-examination by questions as to specific acts”

“Violation of the mandate that a defendant be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay (Pen. Code, § 825) without coercion does not render a confession inadmissible.”

“An original order of commitment as a sexual psychopath is appealable as a final judgment in a special proceeding under section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

VALLÉE, J.

By information defendant was charged in two counts with violations of Penal Code, section 288. In a jury trial

was convicted on

both

counts. His motion for a new trial was denied. The court adjudged defendant is a sexual psychopath and committed him to a state hospital for observation.

Within the statutory period defendant filed a notice of appeal from “the Judgment and sentence . . . and from the Order denying defendant’s Motion for a New Trial.” Three days later, also within the statutory period, he filed an amended notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial omitting any reference to a “Judgment and sentence.”

No purpose would be served in detailing the revolting facts. Suffice it to say the evidence supports the verdict as

[289]

to both counts. Defendant first attacks the credibility of the two children who testified against him. He says they lied. Since the jury impliedly found they had not, that question is not open to review.

On cross-examination of Junior, the child named in count I of the information, he was asked whether he had ever had “an experience like this before.” He said he had not. He was also asked on cross if some two years before he had not committed an improper act with a young girl. The boy answered, “No.” On cross-examination, Kathy, the child named in count II, was asked whether “anything like this” had happened to her with anyone else, to which she replied, “No.” On cross Kathy was also asked whether at some time prior to the time the acts charged against defendant were alleged to have been committed her aunt had asked her why she told “these stories” about defendant and whether she had said “I don’t know why.” The answer was “No” to both questions. Kathy was also asked whether she had not told her aunt at that time, “Daddy had told me to say those things” and “Daddy has played with me,” to both of which questions Kathy answered, “No.”

On motion of the People the foregoing testimony of Junior and Kathy was stricken and the jury instructed to entirely disregard it. Defendant asserts error. The ruling was correct. In

People v. Stice

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief