People v. Brooks, Cr. 985
| Citation | 133 Cal.App.2d 210,283 P.2d 748 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 985 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Howard BROOKS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Monroe & Chula, Santa Ana, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was charged in an information in three counts with violating sections 288 and 288a of the Penal Code, consisting of certain acts alleged to have taken place on or about certain dates in August, 1954, upon the body of and with one Barbara Jean DeWald, aged seven years.
Defendant pleaded not guilty to each count and a jury convicted him of the charges. A motion for new trial was denied. Criminal proceedings were suspended pending sexual psychopathic examination.
As noted by counsel for defendant, the factual situation revealed by the evidence is 'highly distasteful and repugnant'. Briefly summarized, the complaining witness testified that sometime 'this summer' during school vacation, after July 4, 1954, she went to defendant's garage, next door to her home, and defendant exposed his private parts to her; that at a later time, without stating all the gory details, she went to his house and defendant induced her to do a 'Hula' dance with her pants off, and defendant showed her how to do this dance by pulling his pants down and exposing his private parts; that defendant then touched her private parts; that on another such occasion thereafter he rubbed her private parts; and on another occasion he committed an act denounced by section 288a of the Penal Code; that this latter act occurred on five or six different occasions thereafter; that on one occasion, he induced her and her brother, Wayne, aged ten years, to take a bath in the tub, nude, with him, and committed other indecent acts with, and in the presence of, other children in his home. The testimony as to many of these acts was corroborated by the testimony of Wayne, one Jill Young, eight years of age, and one Kenneth Jerome. Defendant told Wayne not to tell his parents of these occurrences.
On September 10, 1954, defendant was asked by an officer if he knew why he was called to the police station and defendant stated he thought it was in relation to the children next door. He was asked if he ever touched and kissed Barbara on her private parts and he admitted he had on two or three occasions. He denied he had her in the bathroom and stated he had warned the children about the happenings in his home and that he did not want his name made public in connection therewith.
On the witness stand he testified he was 64 years of age. He admitted Barbara, as well as Jill, Kenneth and one Charles Wilson, had been in his home. He stated Barbara came over and asked him if he wanted her to do the 'Hula', and she dropped her pants and did the 'Hula'. He admitted he had the children in the bath tub with him on the occasion indicated, but claimed that they came in on him while he was taking a bath. He denied touching Barbara's private parts in any manner.
From a mere reading of the record it must be concluded that the evidence fully supports the verdict as to each count. On this appeal defendant contends that he was not permitted at the trial to introduce so-called character evidence consisting of a statement by a qualified psychiatrist to the effect that defendant would probably be incapable of doing the acts complained of and that he was not a sexual psychopath, and his nature was such that it would be 'improbable' that he intentionally could have committed any of the alleged acts, citing People v. Jones, 42 Cal.2d 219, 266 P.2d 38. This complaint arises as a result of the testimony of a certified psychiatrist, neurologist, and brain wave specialist called by defendant. He was allowed, over objections, to testify that he examined the defendant and made certain tests in conjunction with a clinical psychologist, and they found no evidence that defendant was a sexual deviate. The witness, upon questioning, stated that he did not find anything in his examination to indicate any tendency toward this type...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...the prosecution elected the incident at Roller Towne and the jury was properly instructed by the trial court. In People v. Brooks (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 210, 283 P.2d 748, defendant was prosecuted for lewd conduct with a child and for committing acts of sexual perversion. Although the prosec......
-
State v. Sirisun, 78-239-CR
...when?A No.Q Could have been last year; right?A No.4 See also, State v. Kammerich, 550 S.W.2d 931 (Mo.App.1977); People v. Brooks, 133 Cal.App.2d 210, 283 P.2d 748 (1955), Cert. denied 352 U.S. 932, 77 S.Ct. 234, 1 L.Ed.2d 166 (1956); People v. Wrigley, 69 Cal.2d 149, 70 Cal.Rptr. 116, 443 P......
-
People v. Harvath
...school vacation. The required showing that the variance prejudiced defendant's case is totally lacking. (See People v. Brooks, 133 Cal.App.2d 210, 212--213 (283 P.2d 748).) 'Nor is defendant in a position to urge the variance point here since it was not raised in the court below. (People v.......
-
People v. Harvath
...school vacation. The required showing that the variance prejudiced defendant's case is totally lacking. (See People v. Brooks, 133 Cal.App.2d 210, 212-213, 283 P.2d 748.) Nor is defendant in a position to urge the variance point here since it was not raised in the court below. People v. Bar......