People v. Munos

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 1927 No. Docket No. 967.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for child stealing and that the trial court's refusal to give specific instructions regarding the intent to both detain and conceal did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Whether the evidence sufficiently established that the defendants formed the intent to detain and conceal the child while in Amador County.
Whether the trial court's refusal to give requested instructions regarding the intent to both detain and conceal constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that the girl accompanied the defendants voluntarily is immaterial.”

“In any view of the case the evidence of the defendants’ guilt is so conclusive that it cannot he said that the refusal to give the instructions has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

FINCH, P. J.

The defendants were convicted of the crime of taking and enticing away a girl of fifteen years of age with intent to detain and conceal the child from her father, who had the lawful charge of the child. This appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.

The girl testified that on August 29, 1926, the defendants took her and a Chinese girl out riding in Navarro’s automobile; that on that day Navarro asked her to go with the defendants and the Chinese girl to Los Angeles and “that they might go to Calexico”; that on the next day

[8]

the defendants “begged me and coaxed me to go so I went”; that they left Sutter Creek about 10:30 A- H. and traveled in a roundabout way in order to avoid the officers, who were watching the main roads; that they reached Placerville about 6:30 P. H. of that day, where Hunos and the Chinese girl “went to the courthouse to get married, but it was already closed, so she couldn’t”; that they then drove to Sacramento and thence to Stockton and from there to an automobile camp near Fresno, arriving at the camp about daylight, August 31st; that they there slept in the automobile until about 5 P. M., when they drove to Bakersfield and thence to an automobile camp near San Fernando, arriving there in the night-time; that they left this camp the following evening and drove all night and all the next day, reaching El Centro about 9 P. H.; that they stayed in a hotel there that night, Navarro and the girl occupying the same bed; that they drove to Calexico the next day, at which place they remained for several days, Navarro and the girl occupying a rooip together; and that the sheriff of Amador County took them all back to that county about the middle of September. The Chinese girl, who was seventeen years of age, told a similar story and testified that she and Hunos did not succeed in getting married but that they slept together on the trip.

Navarro testified that he did not ask the prosecuting witness to go away with him; that it was his intention merely to take Hunos and the Chinese girl “to Placerville to get married, and coming back here”; that, while he was in El Centro and Calexico with the girls and Hunos, he did not, “at any time during the course of that trip, sleep with” the prosecuting witness. Hunos gave similar testimony.

People v. Munos

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief