People v. Haywood
| Decision Date | 03 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5244 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Odell HAYWOOD and Juanita Odellia Henderson, Defendants, Juanita Odellia Henderson, Defendant and Appellant. |
Gladys Towles Root, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Odell Haywood was convicted of statutory rape, the victim being a sixteen year old girl. Defendant Juanita Odellia Henderson was convicted of the same offense on the theory that she aided and abetted her co-defendant in the commission of this crime and was therefore a principal under the provisions of section 31 of the Penal Code. Defendant Henderson appeals from the ensuing judgment.
In the evening of November 18, 1953, Officer Cartwright observed Haywood and Mrs. Henderson, the mother of the prosecutrix, in the Cat and Fiddle restaurant. Haywood left the restaurant and got into his car. A moment later Mrs. Henderson also left the restaurant and got into her car. She drove away and Haywood followed her. The prosecutrix lived with her mother in the city of Compton. Some 20 minutes after Mrs. Henderson arrived home Haywood came in. A young girl met him in the living room where her mother was engaged in a telephonic conversation. Haywood said hello to Mrs. Henderson. The girl and Haywood then walked past the mother into the bedroom. Haywood gave the girl a ten dollar bill which she placed in the medicine chest in the bathroom. She then returned to the bedroom where, she testified, she had an act of intercourse with Haywood.
The officers had followed the defendants to the Henderson home. They thereupon took up a vantage point where they could observe what took place in the bedroom. Although the Venetian blind was drawn, there was a crack through which it was possible to see inside the lighted room. The officers described the position of the girl and Haywood on the bed, the position with relation to each other, and Haywood's movements. In a few moments they entered the house and went directly to the bedroom. They also related the physical condition in which they found Haywood.
On entering the house, one of the officers observed a $10.00-bill in Mrs. Henderson's right hand. She moved the cushion on the sofa with her left hand and apparently attempted to hide the bill. The officers, however, seized it while still in her hand.
The prosecutrix testified that a few months prior to November, 1953, her mother had caught her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse and was 'quite mad.' Shortly after this incident, however, appellant told her she would bring the men. Thereafter men came to the house and had intercourse with the prosecutrix for money. They did not come by invitation of the prosecutrix but always arrived about 20 minutes after her mother came home. Appellant was in the house when the acts of intercourse took place. The prosecutrix placed the money given her by the men in the medicine chest. The money sometimes remained there but on other occasions it was gone when she returned. Appellant gave her money when she asked for it.
Appellant confessed her part in the offense to the police, but denied it at the trial.
Appellant's first contention is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the judgment of conviction. Her theory is that the corpus delicti of the crime of rape was not shown, in that the essential element of 'penetration' was not proved. There is no merit in this point. This element of the offense 'may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.' People v. Vicencio, 71 Cal.App.2d 361, 365, 162 P.2d 650, 652. Without reciting the details of what the officers saw when looking through the window and when they entered the bedroom, it certainly may be said that the trier of fact could clearly infer that an act of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty.
...See Cal.Penal Code Ann. §§ 286(b)(1), 288a(b)(1) (West Supp.1981). 5. See Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 31 (West 1970); People v. Haywood, 131 Cal.App.2d 259, 280 P.2d 180 (2d Dist.); People v. Lewis, 113 Cal.App.2d 468, 248 P.2d 461 (1st Dist.). According to statistics maintained by the California......
-
Meagan R., In re
...grounds, Michael M. v. Superior Court (1981) 450 U.S. 464, 101 S.Ct. 1200, 67 L.Ed.2d 437.) However, relying on People v. Haywood (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 259, 280 P.2d 180, and People v. Bartol (1914) 24 Cal.App. 659, 142 P. 510, the People assert that before the amendment women were criminal......
-
People v. Austin
...of the defendant. (Thus, one may aid and abet a third party to have sexual intercourse with an underage girl (People v. Haywood (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 259, 280 P.2d 180; People v. Lewis (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 468, 248 P.2d 461) and a husband may aid and abet a third party to rape his wife (Ma......
-
Com. v. Morrow
...her in the face. For an accomplice to be found guilty of rape, penetration by him is not required. Thus, a woman (People v. Haywood, 131 Cal.App.2d 259, 280 P.2d 180; People v. Trumbley, 252 Ill. 29, 96 N.E. 573), or the victim's husband (People v. Chapman, 62 Mich. 280, 28 N.W. 896; Bohano......