People v. Patterson

California Supreme Court Apr 19, 1894 No. No. 21056Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an individual may be indicted and convicted for incest even if the other party is not charged, and that evidence of prior acts of sexual intercourse between the parties is admissible in incest prosecutions.

Issues

Whether an information charging only one party with incest is legally sufficient.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a challenge for actual bias against a juror when the defendant had remaining peremptory challenges.
Whether evidence of prior acts of sexual intercourse between the parties is admissible in a trial for incest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“conceding that the consent of both parties to the sexual intercourse is necessary to constitute the crime of incest, still it does not follow that one of them alone may not be indicted or informed against, and tried and convicted”

“it seems to be well settled that cases where incest or adultery is charged are among the exceptions. In such cases it has been held that prior acts of sexual intercourse between the parties may be proved.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Incest—Indictment Against One Party.—The fact that the crime of incest may be a joint offense does not preclude an indictment or information against one of the parties, and his trial and conviction for the offense.

Id.—Pleading—Following Language of Statute.—In this state an indictment or information is sufficient, if the language of the statute is substantially followed, and the facts constituting the offense are stated in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.

Id.—Evidence—Distinct Offense.—While, as a general rule, testimony is not admissible which tends to prove a distinct and different offense to that for which the defendant is on trial, yet in cases where incest or adultery is charged, prior acts of sexual intercourse between the parties may be proven.

Belcher, C. The defendant was convicted of the crime of incest, and has appealed from the judgment, and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The information charged that, on the seventh day of March, 1893, at the county of Yolo, in this state, the defendant H. L. Patterson did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, “ upon the person of one Annie L. Patterson, the daughter of said H. L. Patterson, commit fornication and have sexual intercourse with, and carnally know, the said Annie L. Patterson.”

The defendant demurred to the information upon the ground that it did not conform to the requirements of sections 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code, and that the facts stated did not constitute a public offense. The demurrer was overruled, and thereafter a plea of not guilty was duly entered.

1. The first point made for a reversal is, that the crime of incest is a joint offense, which can be committed only with the concurrent assent of two persons, and of which both persons must be guilty, or neither is; and that the information was insufficient, and should have been set aside, because it “ charges the defendant with an offense not known to the law, in this, that it charges him alone with the commission of an offense which one person cannot commit.”

[242]Section 285 of the Penal Code defines the crime of incest, and declares it punishable as follows:

“ Persons being within the degree of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding ten years.”

And the same code contains the following provisions as to indictments and informations:

“Seo. 950. The indictment or information must contain:

“ 1...................

“2. A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”

“Sec. 960. No indictment or information is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form, which does not tend to the prejudice of a substantial right of the defendant upon its merits.”

People v. Patterson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief