79 Cal. 625, 20516, People v. Lenon
|Citation:||79 Cal. 625, 21 P. 967|
|Opinion Judge:||McFARLAND, Judge|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. L. C. LENON, Appellant|
|Attorney:||Hugh J. & William Crawford, for Appellant. Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J. Works, J., Sharpstein, J., Thornton, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.|
|Case Date:||July 05, 1889|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
[21 P. 968] The defendant was charged with and convicted of the crime of rape, and he appeals from the judgment. Appellant contends that the court below erred in allowing the testimony of Mrs. Amanda Stevens, to the effect that, living in a house next and close to that of defendant, she heard him whipping and beating the prosecuting witness. The prosecuting witness, upon whom the alleged crime is charged to have been committed, was a young girl between ten and eleven years old, and lived with the defendant, who was her step-father. She testified that defendant was in the habit or cruelly beating her, and thus keeping her in constant fear and terror, and that she submitted to him under
circumstances which, without such fear and terror, might have indicated consent (if, indeed, consent of such a child could have been found by the jury at all). The testimony of Mrs. Stevens was admitted by the court expressly upon the ground -- and upon no other ground -- of corroborating the statement of the prosecuting witness as to cruel treatment and fear, and we think that for this purpose it was properly admitted. (2 Bishop's Crim. L., secs. 1124, 1125; Regina v. Jones, 4 L. T., N. S., 154.) What is said in People v. Tyler , 36 Cal. 522, does not apply to the case at bar, where the party injured was a mere child under the defendant's control, and where the main question was, whether or not she was influenced by fear to make less resistance than should have appeared under other circumstances. The fact that the beating to which Mrs. Stevens testified the most positively happened about a year before the alleged rape goes only to the weight and not to the admissibility of the testimony.
2. During the examination in chief of the prosecuting witness, she voluntarily, and not in response to a question asked by the prosecution, made a remark indicating that the defendant had, or attempted to have, intercourse with her on...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP