People v. Arrangoiz

McCOMB, J.

Defendant was convicted after trial by jury of violation of section 288 of the Penal Code. This appeal is from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. There is also a purported appeal from the sentence.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the respondent, the essential facts are:

In June, 1937, defendant took a female child of the age of seven years to his room. He took off her clothing and placed his hand on her private parts.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions:

First: The evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.

Second: The trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting (a) the district attorney to ask the prosecuting witness leading questions, and (b) a doctor to testify relative to a pelvic examination of the prosecuting witness made approximately a month after defendant had committed the acts above described.

Defendant’s first proposition is untenable. We have examined the record and are of the opinion there was substantial evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the jury may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain the findings of fact hereinabove mentioned and each and every other material finding of fact upon which the judgment of guilty was predicated.

(Thatch

v.

Livingston,

13 Cal. App. (2d) 202 [56 Pac. (2d) 549] ;

People

v.

Groves,

9 Cal. App. (2d) 317, 321 [49 Pac. (2d) 888, 50 Pac. (2d) 813] ;

Leavens

v.

Pinkham & McKevitt,

164 Cal. 242, 245 [128 Pac. 399].)

[118]