People v. Tenner

NOURSE, P. J.

The defendant was tried before a jury upon an information charging a violation of section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and upon two counts of a grand jury indictment, one charging a violation of section 288a of the Penal Code, • the other charging- an attempt to commit sodomy. The indictment also charged two prior convictions and the service of sentence under each. The jury found the defendant guilty on all three counts. After the record was filed and prior to the submission the defendant voluntarily dismissed his appeal from the portion of the judgment based upon section 702 of the Welfare and -Institutions Code and is serving sentence upon that charge. His briefs which were filed before such dismissal contain matters addressed to that count commingled with arguments on the remaining counts. It is difficult to treat thése briefs of appellant logically because they do not comply with rule 15(a) of the Rules on Appeal.

It may be assumed from the lengthy recital of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the -insinuations inserted therein that the appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that some members of. the San, Fran

[363]

cisco Police Department were instrumental in procuring the prosecutrix to testify falsely in order to procure a conviction. It is unnecessary to recite the sordid testimony of the prosecutrix. It is sufficient to say that it was complete in every detail to support a conviction on all three counts. As to the activities of the police the appellant does not cite any material evidence in the record arid we, of course, are not concerned with the conjectures of suspicions of counsel.

A brief statement of the facts will suffice. The prosecutrix was an unmarried woman of the age of nineteen years who for sométime prior to the acts complained of had been a prostitute. The defendant met her through a pimp who was known to both, took her to a room in the Manx Hotel, and there committed the act denounced by section 288a of - the Penal Code, followed this with a separate act tending to produce delinquency, and then unsuccessfully attempted to commit sodomy.

As to the charge coming under section 288a of the Penal- Code the prosecutrix was unquestionably an accomplice and, since her testimony of what occurred in that regard was not corroborated, the judgment on that count must be reversed.