People v. Ramey

California Court of Appeal Dec 3, 1924 No. Docket No. 1198.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for incest and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or handling of alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of incest.
Whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings during cross-examination.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the prosecutrix's failure to make an outcry.
Whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding their duty to enforce the law.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The objection to the other question is that it had already been asked and answered, but this, of course, is a matter that is within the discretion of the trial court and is not a ground for reversal on appeal.”

NOURSE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of incest, committed upon his daughter, a girl of sixteen years of age. He appeals from the judgment following the verdict and from the order denying a motion for new trial. On this appeal he suggests that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Wc have examined the record with care and find that the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, convincing, and without substantial conflict. In addition to this it is corroborated,by the testimony of her sister, a girl of fourteen years of age.

Objections are made to the ruling of the trial court in the admission of testimony during the course of the trial. One question which the appellant was not permitted to ask the prosecutrix on her cross-examination was purely argumentative, calling for her conclusion as to why the appellant had acted in a certain manner. Another question which the people were permitted to ask over the objection of appellant related to the question of the appellant’s sobriety at the time of the alleged offense. The answer was that he appeared to be sober. Neither, the question nor the answer could have prejudiced appellant’s defense. The objection to the other question is that it had already been asked and answered, but this, of course, is a matter that is within the discretion of the trial court and is not a ground for reversal on appeal.

A number of specifications of error are made by the appellant under the head of the misconduct of the district attorney, but we find that in each case where the conduct of the district attorney was objectionable the jury was properly instructed to disregard it.

Error is assigned in the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the request of the appellant that the failure 'of the prosecutrix to make an outcry might be considered in determining her credibility as a witness, and also in determining whether or not the crime had been committed.

[94]

An identical instruction was requested and refused in

People

Reynolds,

48 Cal. App. 688, 690 [192 Pac. 343], and the refusal was there held to be proper. To the same effect is

People v. Ramey

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief