People v. Perras

MUSSELL, J. Appellant was charged in count one of an information with a violation of section 288a of the Penal Code, alleged to have been committed on or about July 26, 1958, with one Leonard B. Lindbeck. In count two he was charged with a violation of section 286 of the Penal Code in that on or about July 26, 1958, he wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously committed the infamous crime against nature with one Leonard Bossier Lindbeck. In count three appellant was. charged with a violation of Penal Code, section 288a, alleged to have been committed with one Prank Perras; and in count four appellant was charged with the commission of the infamous crime against nature with one Prank Perras. A jury trial resulted in verdicts finding appellant guilty of the offenses charged in counts one and [398]two of the information and not guilty as to the charges in counts three and four. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to the state prison. He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Leonard Bossier Lindbeek, known as “Lindy,” was born on December 26, 1942, and at the times here involved lived with his parents in Garden Grove. Appellant lived about a block from the Lindbeek home and during the early part of 1957 appellant asked Lindy if he would like to help him around the house and Lindy cleaned the house, brushed appellant’s dogs, did the dishes, and did different work around the house. Lindy testified in detail as to many immoral acts on the part of appellant, both before and after the acts charged in counts one and two of the information, and described in detail the actual commission of the crimes charged in said counts. His testimony, if believed and sufficiently corroborated, is ample to support the verdicts of the jury. The principal contention of the appellant is that the conviction was had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Bespondent concedes that Lindy was a willing participant in the acts for which appellant was convicted but contends that his testimony is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence contained in the record.

In People v. Lyons, 50 Cal.2d 245, 257 [324 P.2d 556], the court said: “The rules concerning the sufficiency of evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice are as follows: Section 1111 of the Penal Code provides, in part: ‘A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. . . .’