People v. Bahara, Cr. 6102
| Decision Date | 03 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6102 |
| Citation | 159 Cal.App.2d 160,323 P.2d 453 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank BAHARA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Frank Bahara, in pro. per., for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Lynn Henry Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of statutory rape. The complaining witness was an unmarried girl 16 years of age. Defendant appeals from the decision finding him guilty and from the judgment.
On a Thursday in March 1957 six or seven young folks, including the complaining witness and defendant, had a party in a home in Sun Valley, Los Angeles County. All of the participants except the complaining witness and defendant left the party to go to a liquor store. The complaining witness testified that while the others were gone defendant committed the act charged.
Defendant's only contention is that the testimony of the complaining witness was internally conflicting; that it was so inherently improbable as to be unworthy of belief; and that it was contradicted by his testimony. He asserts that at one time the complaining witness testified she and defendant were alone 45 minutes and at another time they were alone an hour. He says at one time she testified there were seven persons at the party and at another time there were ten persons present. And he says he contradicted her testimony by positively testifying they were alone only ten minutes, and there were only six persons present.
It was the function of the trial court, not this court, to resolve inconsistencies and contradictions, if any, in the testimony of the complaining witness. The trier of fact may believe and accept a part of the testimony of a witness and disbelieve the remainder. On appeal that part which supports the judgment must be accepted, not that part which would defeat, or tend to defeat, the judgment. People v. Thomas, 103 Cal.App.2d 669, 672, 229 P.2d 836.
Testimony is not inherently improbable unless it appears that what was related or described could not have occurred. Trancoso v. Trancoso, 96 Cal.App.2d 797, 798, 216 P.2d 172. '[T]he rule is well settled that to warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a jury, or trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blum
...v. Rodriguez, 169 Cal.App.2d 771, 777, 338 P.2d 41; People v. Justice, 167 Cal.App.2d 616, 621, 334 P.2d 1031; People v. Bahara, 159 Cal.App.2d 160, 161--162, 323 P.2d 453; People v. Hamilton, 127 Cal.App.2d 533, 534, 274 P.2d 175; People v. Hill, 126 Cal.App.2d 378, 380, 272 P.2d 113; Peop......
-
People v. Johnson
...is not our function to resolve inconsistencies and contradictions, if any, in the testimony of the complaining witness (People v. Bahara, 159 Cal.App.2d 160, 323 P.2d 453); the claimed weaknesses of identification testimony are a matter of argument to the trier and cannot properly be direct......
-
People v. Knighton
...that what was related or described could not have occurred. Trancoso v. Transcoso, 96 Cal.App.2d 797, 216 P.2d 172; People v. Bahara, 159 Cal.App.2d 160, 323 P.2d 453. 'To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist eit......
-
People v. Caruso
...322, 324, 263 P.2d 90, and cases cited therein. See also People v. Rankin, 160 Cal.App.2d 93, 100-101, 325 P.2d 10; People v. Bahara, 159 Cal.App.2d 160, 323 P.2d 453. Obtaining property by false pretenses is the fraudulent or deceitful acquisition of title and possession. People v. Ashley,......