People v. Lachuk

WILLIS, J., pro tem.

The defendant was charged in four counts of an information with the separate crimes of rape and incest with his own sixteen year old daughter, alleged to have been committed on July 12, 1934, and on July, f 27, 1934. A plea of not guilty was entered and the case tried before the court without a jury, defendant being convicted on all four counts.

During the trial the court permitted the prosecution to amend the information by changing the date of one of each of the offenses of rape and incest from July 12, 1934, to June 20, 1934. No objection was made by defendant to the amendment, nor did he raise any question whatever at the trial as to its propriety; nor did he suggest surprise or request a continuance to prepare to meet the new issue as to date. The amendment was authorized by section 1008 of the Penal Code and no prejudice to defendant is made to appear as a result of such change of date.

(People

v.

Anthony,

20 Cal. App. 586 [129 Pac. 968] ;

People

v.

Marshall,

99 Cal. App. 224 [278 Pac. 258].)

Appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction on the several counts is without merit. The testimony of the prosecutrix was not inherently improbable, and it was corroborated in substantial detail, notwithstanding that the testimony of the prosecutrix in charges of rape on a female under the age of consent requires no corroboration as a matter of law.

(People

v.

Meraviglia,

73 Cal. App. 402, 411 [238 Pac. 794].)

[731]

And the daughter in this case, being under the age of consent, was not in law an accomplice in the crime of incest, and therefore her testimony was legally sufficient to support the conviction without corroboration.