People v. Clark

• Decision Date: 10 November 1965
• Docket Number: Cr. 8990
• Parties: , 407 P.2d 294 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Merl J. CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 382

47 Cal.Rptr. 382

63 Cal.2d 503, 407 P.2d 294

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Merl J. CLARK, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 8990.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Nov. 10, 1965.

Haskell J. Shapiro and Louis I. Bell, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ronald W. Tochterman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

From a judgment after trial before the court without a jury, finding defendant guilty of violating section 288 of the Penal Code, he appeals.

Facts: The prosecutrix, Autumn Landers, the 11-year old stepdaughter of defendant, testified, in substance, that during the period November 15, 1962, through May 22 of the following year defendant on three separate dates took her into his bedroom and had sexual intercourse with her. Defendant denied having sexually molested her at any time. Question: Did the trial court err in restricting the scope of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the examination of defense witnesses called to impeach her?

Yes. These rules are here applicable:

(1) In this type of case the broadest latitude in cross-examination and production of rebuttal evidence is required. (People v. Scholl, 225 Cal.App.2d 558, 562-563 (8a, 9), 37 Cal.Rptr. 475 (hearing denied by the Supreme Court).)

(2) Although generally the character of a witness may not be attacked by evidence of specific wrongful acts (CODE CIV.PROC. S 2051 )¹, this rule is not controlling where the inquiry goes beyond character and involves a basic fact in issue. Accordingly, evidence contradicting the testimony of a witness, even if it consists of proof of other wrongful acts, is proper if it is relevant to an issue in the case. ² (People v. Westek, 31 Cal.2d 469, 480(8), 190 P.2d 9; People v. Hurlburt, 166 Cal.App.2d 334, 339 (3), 333 P.2d 82, 75 A.L.R.2d 500 (hearing denied by the Supreme Court).)

The prosecutrix testified that defendant had sexual intercourse with her on three separate occasions. Although she was examined by a physician, no medical testimony was offered to corroborate her statements.

She testified, among other things, that she had never before seen the private parts of any boy or man and that she had never had sexual experiences before or gone into bedrooms with boys.

The defense maintained that the charges were fantasy or fabrications on the part of the prosecutrix and that she was not talling the truth, and offered to prove that she had engaged in sexual experience short of intercourse with at least four boys and had a propensity to fabricate stories about sexual molestations.

The boys were not permitted to testify with respect to any particular sexual experiences with the prosecutrix.

The offered testimony of the boys was to the effect that the prosecutrix knew about sexual matters and had indulged in sexual play with them; that she knew about sexual organs, male urges, and male responses to sex play; and that she had obtained other knowledge through reading and discussions with her friends of both sexes and with her mother and father.

The trial court refused to admit proferred testimony regarding the particular instances of the prosecutrix' sex play with the boy witnesses, upon the ground that such evidence was inadmissible under section 2051 of the Code of Civil Procedure and upon the ground of immateriality and irrelevancy.

Applying the foregoing rules to the facts in the present case, it is clear that the trial court erred in refusing to receive the proferred evidence.

The record discloses that the charges did not come to light until after a long talk between the prosecutrix and her older sister Toni at their natural father's house on the evening of Father's Day. Between midnight and 2 a.m. the girls had a discussion and then awakened their father and told him of the alleged molestations by defendant. This was six months after the first alleged offense.

Toni, the older sister, had made similar charges against defendant five years previously, of which charges he was acquitted; and thereafter she was sent to live with her natural father. An inference of motive and fabrication can be drawn from such circumstances, the prosecutrix having testified she loved her natural father very much.

The record discloses that the prosecutrix never complained to her mother at any time that the stepfather had engaged in any of the alleged acts of intercourse (the prosecutrix' mother so testified and stated that the warm and affectionate...