People v. Bellamy

California Court of Appeal Aug 9, 1926 No. Docket No. 889.Published

Before: Needham

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an indictment may be amended as to form under Penal Code section 1008, and that evidence of prior similar offenses is admissible in pimping prosecutions to show intent, plan, or system.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in permitting amendments to the indictment.
Whether evidence of prior offenses was admissible to show guilty knowledge, intent, plan, or system.
Whether the district attorney's comments on prior offenses and the defendant's failure to rebut them constituted error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The amendment did not change the offense charged, as it related to matters of form only, and not to matters of substance.”

“Such evidence is admitted as corroborative evidence to show the disposition on the part of the defendant and tending to support the one specific offense for which the defendant is being tried.”

[161]

NEEDHAM, J.,

pro tem.

The defendant was charged by an indictment of the grand jury of the county of Sacramento with the crime of pimping, as defined by the Statutes of 1911, page 10, which reads as follows:

“Section 1. Any male person who, knowing a female person to be a prostitute, shall live or derive support or maintenance, in whole or in part, from the earnings or proceeds of the prostitution of such prostitute, or from moneys loaned or advanced to or charged against such prostitute by any keeper or manager or inmate of a house or other place where prostitution is practiced or allowed, or who shall solicit or receive compensation for soliciting for such prostitute, shall be guilty of a felony, to wit: pimping, and upon conviction for an offense under this act shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of not less than one year nor more than three years.

“Sec. 2. Any such female person referred to in the foregoing section shall be a competent witness in any prosecution under this act to testify for or against the accused as to any transaction or as to any conversation with the accused or by him with another person or persons in her presence, notwithstanding her having married the accused before or after the violation of any of the provisions of this act, whether called as a witness during the existence of the marriage or after its dissolution.”

The defendant was convicted by the jury; thereupon he moved for a new trial, which was denied, and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He prosecutes this appeal from the judgment and the order denying him a new trial.

The appellant in his brief refers at length to the evidence in the case, but a careful examination of the record discloses that the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming. The appellant in his brief states: “The evidence given at the trial is conflicting. If the prosecutrix can be believed, there can be no question but that during the month of May, 1925, she was a prostitute, practiced prostitution and received money therefor, which money she gave to the defendant, Bellamy, and upon which he subsisted during that month.” The counsel for de

People v. Bellamy

AI Brief

NEEDHAM, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief