People v. Pia
Before: Cooper, Kerrigan
Synopsis
Criminal Law — Rape — Evidence — Declarations of Defendant.— Where it appears that the prosecuting witness upon, the trial of the defendant for rape was one of two girls employed in a newspaper office, evidence of his declarations to a third person, about a month before the commission of the offense, that he intended to have sexual intercourse with the “girl who works on the ‘Marin Journal,’ ” without giving any name, was admissible to show his intention and purpose, and as tending to corroborate other evidence tending to show that he committed the offense against the person of the prosecutrix, who was one of the two persons within the description employed by him to designate the object of his contemplated attack.
Id.—Remoteness of Declarations not Affecting Admissibility—■ Probative Force.—The fact that the declarations were made by the defendant a month before the commission of the offense was a matter which went to its probative force, but not to its admissibility.
Id.—Sufficiency of Affirmation—One -Offense Charged.—An information alleging that the defendant assaulted the prosecutrix with the intent to accomplish an act of sexual intercourse with her, and by force and violence and against her will he did feloniously accomplish that act, charges but one offense, rape, and the court committed no error in denying a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that it charges two offenses.
Id.—Support of Verdict.—Held, that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.
Opinion — Kerrigan
[132]
KERRIGAN, J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape. He moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for life. His motion in arrest of judgment was also denied, and this appeal is from the orders denying his said motions and from the judgment.
The first point urged in support of the appeal is the admission of certain testimony given by the witness Basilio Calzascia claimed to have been erroneously admitted. Prior to the calling of this witness the evidence introduced showed that at the time of the commission of the offense charged and for some time previously two young women were employed in the office of the “Marin Journal” at San Rafael, one of whom was the prosecutrix, Mary Elizabeth Grapes. In this state of the evidence the witness Calzascia testified, over the objection and exception of defendant, that about a month before the date of the attack charged he overheard two conversations, one between the defendant and Luigi Gamba, and the other between the defendant and a man named Milano; that in the first of these conversations the defendant spoke of the “girl who works for the ‘Marin Journal,’ ” and in the second he said in effect that he intended to have sexual intercourse with her, if not with her consent then by force. Defendant now contends that as the conversations testified to do not clearly show that the prosecutrix was the girl referred to, they had nothing to do with the case and were therefore inadmissible.
This position is untenable. The testimony showed that the defendant intended under certain circumstances to commit the crime of rape on one of two certain women, and it tended to corroborate other evidence in the case to the effect that he committed an offense of this character against the person of the prosecuting witness, who was one of the two persons coming within the description employed by the defendant to designate the object of his contemplated attack. In the case of
People
v.
Harlan,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)