People v. Hobbs, Cr. 2787
Decision Date | 11 February 1952 |
Docket Number | Cr. 2787 |
Citation | 109 Cal.App.2d 189,240 P.2d 411 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PEOPLE v. HOBBS. |
Marcollo, Cannelora & Marcollo and Calfee, Gregg, Moses & Calfee, Richmond, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., David K. Lener, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant in this action stands charged by an amended information with a violation of section 288 of the Penal Code committed against a twelve year old school child. He is also charged with prior convictions of grand theft in Missouri and burglary in Idaho. Both prior convictions were admitted but a plea of not guilty was entered to the principal charge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
The only ground urged for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Appellant contends that the acts committed by him do not come within the purview of said section 288 and that no offense was committed.
Section 288 provides that: 'Any person who shall wilfully and lewdly commit any lewd or lascivious act including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in part one of this code upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of such person or of such child, shall be guilty of a felony * * *.' (Italics added.)
The act is alleged to have been committed on the 8th day of June, 1951. The defendant contends that his actions as disclosed by the record were neither lewd nor lascivious, his contention being that at all times he conducted himself only in a fatherly manner toward the child.
On June 8, he met the girl by appointment in front of a cafe about one and one-half blocks from her home. According to his version his object was to take her to school. He was driving a yellow pick-up truck at the time. Upon meeting him the girl climbed into the cab of the pick-up and they drove to a spot about a block from the school where he stopped and parked. He then charged places with her on the seat of the truck. The child testified:
'Q. And when the truck was stopped, what happened if anything? A. Well, he started kissing me.
'Q. And by 'he' who do you mean? A. Roy Hobbs.
'
'
* * *
* * *
'The Court: Will you show us where he put it?
'The Witness: About here.
'The Court: On top of your clothing or underneath?
'The Witness: Underneath.
'The Court: Underneath?
'The Witness: Yes sir.
'The Court: Did you have a dress on?
'The Witness: A skirt.
'The Witness: Yes sir.
'The Court: He put his hand underneath your skirt on top of your panties or under your panties?
The witness Thompson testified:
* * *
' * * *
'
William Kameyer, a carpenter for the Richmond School Department, testified that
'Q. And with reference to the truck, did you see anything? A. I seen two people in there kissing.
'Q. What else did you see, if anything? A. That is all. They were just up and down all the time.
'Q. Will you tell the jury what you meant by 'up and down'? A. Well, you could see them once in awhile sitting up, and next time they would be laying down on the seat.
Henry Coate, another employee of the school district, testified that he too saw a man and a lady embracing in a very passionate manner in the truck. The defendant had driven the child to school on other occasions and on three separate occasions met her in a theatre where on each occasion he kissed her. These clandestine meetings continued over a period of about three weeks.
Counsel for appellant in support of the argument that the act of the defendant in lying on top of the girl on the seat of the truck embracing and kissing her passionately, and placing his hand on her leg beneath her clothing and reaching for her private parts does not come within the purview of the statute has assembled and presented a voluminous list of cases in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. McIntyre
...Cal.App.3d 829, 834-836, 145 Cal.Rptr. 823; People v. Toliver (1969) 270 Cal. App.2d 492, 496, 75 Cal.Rptr. 819; People v. Hobbs (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 189, 192, 240 P.2d 411.) Implicit in the determination that children must be protected from such acts is a determination that at least some ......
-
People v. Scott
... ... 172; People v. Nothnagel (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 219, 225, 9 Cal.Rptr. 519; People v. Hobbs (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 189, 192, 240 P.2d 411; People v. Ahsbahs (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 244, 250, 175 P.2d 33; People v. Schultz (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d ... ...
-
People v. Sharp
...795-796, 89 Cal.Rptr. 172 [rubbing victim's stomach, with requisite intent, can be a lewd or lascivious act]; People v. Hobbs (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 189, 190-192, 240 P.2d 411 [kissing and rubbing the leg of a 12-year-old girl under her skirt was lewd or lascivious act within the meaning of ......
-
People v. Pitts
... ... Virtually any act can fit this description, depending upon the intent with which it is done. As stated in People v. Hobbs (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 189, 192, 240 P.2d 411: ... "Section 288 of the Penal Code was enacted to protect children from the lustful ... ...