People v. Mancuso (1913) · DecisionDepot

People v. Mancuso

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Oct 31, 1913 No. Crim. No. 449.Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant waived his right to demand a selection of a specific act of intercourse by failing to object at trial, and that alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct and instructional error did not warrant reversal.

Issues

Whether the prosecution was required to select a specific act of intercourse when multiple acts were proven.
Whether the district attorney's cross-examination and closing argument constituted prejudicial misconduct.
Whether the trial court's modification of a jury instruction was erroneous.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the defendant, in view of the condition of the record, must be deemed to have waived any right he may have had to a more definite selection of the principal act.”

“the court immediately, upon objection, directed the jury to disregard the comment, which admonition we will presume, the jury obeyed”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. William P. Lawlor, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

KERRIGAN, J.

The defendant was convicted upon a charge of rape upon the person of a child under the age of consent. The appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

It is true, as asserted by the defendant, that in prosecutions for rape, where a single act is charged and a series of acts of sexual intercourse are proved, the prosecution must select the particular act relied upon.

(People

v. Castro, 133 Cal. 11, [65 Pac. 13].) But in the present case a specific act was alleged in the information, and that act with a great many others was proved. No objection was made to any of this testimony, nor did the defendant complain at any time during the trial that he was in doubt as to which act of sexual intercourse was the basis of. the prosecution. Apparently the district attorney relied particularly on the act alleged; but in any event the defendant, in view of the condition of the record, must be deemed to have waived any right he may have had to a more definite selection of the principal act.

Complaint is also made that the district attorney was guilty of misconduct in two instances. The first arose when the district attorney brought out on the cross-examination of the defendant’s wife that the defendant had served a term of imprisonment in the county jail. That error on the part of the district attorney could not have injured the defendant for the reason that a statement to the same effect had inadvertently crept into the ease prior to the time when the question now complained about was asked. Moreover, no assignment of misconduct was made at the time, nor was the court requested to instruct the jury to disregard the objectionable question. Therefore the possibility of injufy resulting to the defendant in consequence of that question cannot now be considered.

(People

v. Walker, 15 Cal. App. 400, [114 Pac. 1009].)

The second act of misconduct to which objection is made occurred during the argument to the jury by the district attorney, when he observed in effect that he could not go fully into defendant’s story of the ease on cross-examination be

[148]

People v. Mancuso

AI Brief

Synopsis

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief