People v. Sargent

PRESTON, P. J.

The appellant, Henry C. Sargent, was charged by information filed by the district attorney of Napa County with four separate and distinct violations of section 288 of the Penal Code, committed upon four different boys. The jury acquitted him of the charge contained in the first three counts and convicted him of the charges contained in the fourth count. A motion for a new trial was made and denied by the trial court and judgment of imprisonment in the state prison was pronounced. This appeal is from the judgment and, also, from the order denying a new trial.

Appellant contends that the court erred in admitting evidence that his general reputation for morals in San Francisco prior to his coming to Napa County was bad. This contention is based upon these facts: A number of witnesses called by the appellant testified that the appellant’s general reputation for morals was good, and, at least One witness testified without objection that he had known appellant in San Francisco for about six years before he came to Napa County and that his reputation in that city for morals was good. Appellant had been away from San Francisco for about eighteen months or two years prior to the commission of the offense of which he stands convicted. To rebut this testimony, the People placed upon the witness-stand Mr. J. C. Astredo, formerly chief probation officer of the juvenile court of the city and county of San Francisco. Mr. Astredo testified that he had known appellant in San Francisco, and while the appellant resided there, his reputation for morals “was not good”. Appellant now insists that this evidence was too remote and, therefore, incompetent and highly prejudicial.

We find no merit in this contention. The rule is well settled that it is a question for the trial court to determine whether or not general reputation in the place of former residence is too remote in point of time to be allowed in evidence.

(Broderick

v.

Broderick,

40 Cal. App. 550 [181 Pac. 402];

People

v.

Cord,

157 Cal. 562 [108 Pac. 511]; 10 Cal. Jur. 1048.) We cannot say that the court abused its

[52]