People v. Jordan

ROTH, J. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the violation of Penal Code, section 274 (abortion), performed upon Delores Abalos. The case was submitted to the trial court on the preliminary hearing transcript; each side reserving the right to present additional evidence. After each side had argued, the prosecution moved to reopen for additional testimony. Appellant moved for a mistrial and the motion was granted.

Upon retrial the information was amended to charge appellant with a prior conviction under Penal Code, sections 182 and 274, which he denied. The court found appellant guilty as charged.

Appellant appeals on the grounds that: (1) the testimony of Mrs. Abalos was not sufficiently corroborated by other evidence ; (2) the trial court erred in ruling on the prior conviction, since it did not consider the file of that case (Los Angeles Superior Court No. 187164); and (3) the district attorney committed prejudicial error at the first trial by attempting to reopen the trial after both parties had rested.

The rules pertaining to corroboration are clearly stated in the recent ease of People v. Bawden, 208 Cal.App.2d 589, 596 [25 Cal.Rptr. 368], The court stated that ‘' Corroboration is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy [9]the jury that the woman is telling the truth. ... It has been held that the corroborative evidence need not by itself establish that the crime was committed or show all the elements thereof, but it must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the offense. [Citations.] It must create more than a suspicion, but it may be sufficient even though slight and entitled to but little consideration when standing by itself. ”

In this case the record shows that Mrs. Abalos became pregnant in April 1962, discussed it with her husband and decided upon an abortion. Thereafter Mr. Abalos spoke with other persons, and at the suggestion of an unidentified listener, gave his home phone number to a third person.

On or about June 18 or 19, Mrs. Abalos received a telephone call from someone who said “This is Doc.” She told this person she wished to terminate her pregnancy and an appointment was made for June 22, at her home. On the arranged date, a man having a goatee, arrived at her house by cab; entered the house carrying a suitcase which she later learned contained a Trilen mask; and aborted her. Upon conclusion of the operation the man asked permission to call a cab. Mrs. Abalos heard him say “This is Doc, have Wylie pick me up.” Mrs. Abalos then gave Doc, who is the appellant, $400 in cash without taking a receipt.