People v. Honaker
| Decision Date | 28 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4098 |
| Citation | 22 Cal.Rptr. 829,205 Cal.App.2d 243 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Merle HONAKER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Wainwright & Fleishell, by Harry S. Wainwright, San Francisco, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
Appellant, a lifeguard at a swimming pool, was convicted of having violated section 288 of the Penal Code by touching the body of a 12-year-old girl, with the intent of arousing and gratifying his sexual desires. The girl's testimony was that defendant put his hand inside her bathing suit, while both persons were in the water, and touched her private parts about four times. She complained to her mother. Defendant, upon his arrest, told a deputy sheriff that he might have touched the girl's private parts, but if so, he did so accidentally while teaching her to swim or lifting her from the pool.
The case was tried with a similar charge involving another girl, 10 years old. The girl was somewhat confused on dates and apparently hesitant in her testimony. The jury acquitted on this charge.
Defendant did not testify. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, but rests his appeal on the claim that it was error to allow the testimony of two other girls, aged 11 and 12, that similar molestations had been practiced on them in swimming pools by defendant, within about a month of the time of the offense on which defendant was convicted.
In each case, defendant was in the water with the girl, teaching a somersault or helping the girl in some way; in each, the incident was at an hour when few people were present, and these were at some distance from the incident.
The single contention made by appellant is that it was error to permit, over his objection, testimony of the incidents involving the two girls who were not named in the information. He concedes that such evidence might have been admissible in rebuttal if he had testified, depending on the content of his testimony, but asserts that it is not admissible in the case in chief.
We conclude that the evidence was properly admitted: First, to show the specific intent to arouse sexual desires, an essential element of the offense as created by the statute, and an element put in issue by defendant's plea of not guilty. Although where the specific intent is unequivocal, evidence of other offenses is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Enos
...12 Cal.2d 639, 647, 86 P.2d 877; People v. Kelley, supra, 66 Cal.2d 232, 242--243, 57 Cal.Rptr. 363, 424 P.2d 947; People v. Honaker, 205 Cal.App.2d 243, 244, 22 Cal.Rptr. 829 (disapproved on other grounds, 66 Cal.2d at 244, 86 P.2d We have no difficulty concluding that evidence of the inci......
-
People v. Tassell
...190 P.2d 9 [defendant claimed that touching of young boys was not lustful but done with innocent intent]; People v. Honaker (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 243, 244-245, 22 Cal.Rptr. 829 [defendant claims that touching of girl's private parts was accidental]; cf. People v. Tawney (1959) 168 Cal.App.2......
-
People v. Elder
...249 Cal.App.2d 246, 251, 57 Cal.Rptr. 289; People v. Covert, supra, 249 Cal.App.2d 81, 88, 57 Cal.Rptr. 220; People v. Honaker (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 243, 244, 22 Cal.Rptr. 829; and People v. Malloy (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 219, 233, 18 Cal.Rptr. 545.) In Kelley the court referred to the situat......
-
People v. Kelley
...of his guilt of the crime charged. (People v. Westek, supra, 31 Cal.2d 469, 480--481, 190 P.2d 9; see also, People v. Honaker, 205 Cal.App.2d 243, 245, 22 Cal.Rptr. 829.) There seems to be a trend in recent 288 cases to admit evidence of not too remote offenses which are of a character simi......