People v. Demousset
Before: Paterson
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los-Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Opinion
The Court. The defendant was convicted of the-crime of abduction for the purposes of prostitution, and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state prison under section 267 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows: "Every person who takes away any female under the age of eighteen years, from her father, mother, guardian, or other person having the legal charge of her person, without their consent, for the purpose of prostitution, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, and a fine not exceeding one-thousand dollars.”
The court instructed the jury as follows:—
“If from the evidence the jury believe that Augustine Coela was a female child under eighteen years of age, in the legal charge of her mother, and that the defendant took her away, as alleged in the information, for the purpose of prostitution, they should find the defendant guilty as charged.”
It is claimed that this instruction is erroneous, because it omits the element of the previous chaste character of the female, and because it does not inform the jury that the taking must have been without the consent of the parent.
It will be observed that the section says nothing about the chastity of the female. The law is intended to protect the chaste and reclaim the erring, to protect parents and guardians in their custody and care of minor females, without regard to the character of such female for chastity, and the family from sorrow and disgrace.
[613]We are not disposed, in the construction of this section, to interpolate any phrase that will detract from its effectiveness in this regard.
In other portions of its charge the court said to the jury:—
“Before you can convict the defendant, you must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the defendant took the girl away from her parents without their consent, but also that he took her away for the purpose of prostitution. The word ‘prostitution ’ in the statute does not mean sexual intercourse with some particular man, or with one man only, but it means to offer freely .an-1 openly to an indiscriminate, common intercourse wi -^en.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)