People v. Hurd

• Decision Date: 24 March 1970
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Stanley Harle HURD, Defendant and Appellant. Crs. 3639, 3640.

Page 718

85 Cal.Rptr. 718

5 Cal.App.3d 865

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Stanley Harle HURD, Defendant and Appellant.

Crs. 3639, 3640.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

March 24, 1970.

Miller & Macdonald and James B. Macdonald, Fullerton, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jeffrey T. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

KAUFMAN, Associate Justice.

In two cases consolidated for trial (C-19487 and C-19753) a jury returned guilty verdicts against defendant on four counts of incest (Penal Code, section 285), three counts of oral copulation (Penal Code, section 288a), and one count of sodomy (Penal Code, section 286). Mentally disordered sex offender proceedings were had and terminated; defendant's application for probation was denied, and he was sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law on each count, all sentences to run concurrently.

Defendant appeals from the judgment in each case, contending that (1) Penal Code, section 654 precludes separate sentencing as to a number of the offenses; (2) evidence of other crimes not charged was erroneously admitted; (3) the convictions are supported only by the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; (4) any legal distinction as to the necessity for corroboration as between the crime of incest on the one hand and the crimes of sodomy and oral copulation on the other hand is without rational foundation and violates defendant's right to equal protection of law; (5) the statutes proscribing incest, sodomy and oral copulation as applied in this case, constitute unconstitutional legislative invasions of defendant's right to privacy and constitute cruel and unusual punishment; (6) defendant's character witness was erroneously cross-examined; and (7) defendant was denied due process of law because of the inadequacy of his trial counsel.

The facts viewed most favorably to the People (People v. Redmond, 71 A.C. 775, 784--785, 79 Cal.Rptr. 529, 457 P.2d 321) are as follows.

The information in case C-19487 charged one count of incest (Count I), one count of sodomy (Count II), and one count of oral copulation (Count III), all arising out of conduct of the defendant on October 10, 1967 at defendant's residence in Anaheim. The information in case C-19753 charged one count of incest (Count II) and one count of oral copulation (Count V), both arising out of defendant's conduct on August 14, 1967 at his residence in Anaheim and one count of incest (Count IV) and one count of oral copulation (Count VII), both arising out of defendant's conduct on April 29, 1967 at the Holiday Inn in Orange, and one count of incest (Count III) arising out of defendant's conduct on March 11, 1967 at office 'B' in Anaheim. ¹

The principal witness for the prosecution was the victim of the alleged sexual crimes, the defendant's 16-year-old daughter, ² who came to California to live with him in December of 1966 after previously having lived with her mother in Utah for about seven years. With respect to the charged sexual offenses, she testified in substance as follows.

Counts I, II and III, Case C-19487. On October 10, 1967 she was a student in high school. When she arrived home that day at about 2:50 p.m., defendant was in the house, but no one else was there. Defendant told her to get undressed, and she did. They engaged in an act of oral copulation (Count III) and then in sexual intercourse (Count I). They then talked for about 15 minutes and then had anal intercourse (Count II).

Count III, Case C-19753. On March 11, 1967 defendant and his daughter were living in Corona. On that date they went to defendant's office (office 'B') on Manchester in Anaheim, where defendant first inserted a 'coke' bottle filled with water into his daughter's vagina, removed it, and, thereafter, had sexual intercourse with her on the floor of the office.

Counts II and V, Case C-19753. On August 14, 1967 defendant and his daughter were moving some belongings from their residence in Corona to their new residence in Anaheim. When they arrived at the Anaheim residence, they were alone and engaged in an act of oral copulation 'just before' engaging in an act of intercourse in the daughter's bedroom.

Counts IV and VII, Case C-19753. On April 29, 1967 defendant took his daughter to the Holiday Inn in the afternoon. Defendant registered and they went to their room. Defendant left, and the daughter went swimming in the swimming pool. Later that day, defendant returned and engaged in sexual intercourse with his daughter. They then dressed and went out to dinner, after which they returned to the room and engaged in an act of oral copulation and another act of sexual intercourse, following which they dressed and returned to their residence. A registration card from the Holiday Inn was introduced into evidence, showing the registration of defendant and his daughter at the Holiday Inn on April 29, 1967.

There were no witnesses, other than defendant and his daughter, to the foregoing occurrences. Defendant took the stand, and on direct examination he not only denied these specific acts but denied ever having feelings of sexual attraction towards his daughter, denied ever making sexual advances towards his daughter, denied ever having sexual intercourse with his daughter and denied ever having any sexual contact of any kind with his daughter. Defendant gave no explanation for the registration of him and the daughter at the Holiday Inn.

In its case in chief, the prosecution was permitted, over defendant's objection, to present evidence of other, uncharged sex offenses by defendant against his daughter for the limited purpose of showing the disposition of the defendant towards his daughter and the relationship between the parties. ³

The daughter testified that on April 5, 1967 defendant drove her to the Ramada Inn in Riverside on his motorcycle, that she waited outside while defendant registered and that they thereafter went to a room in the Inn where they engaged in four acts of sexual intercourse over approximately a four-hour period. She testified that defendant thereafter left, telling her that he was leaving to 'go get somebody' and that he would be back in about an hour. When defendant returned he brought with him a Mr. Victor Ott, whom the daughter had never met before. The daughter was sleeping. Defendant woke her up and told her that he had someone outside who wanted to have sexual relations with her. Defendant helped her undress hurriedly and then went over and opened the door and invited Ott in. Thereafter Ott removed his clothing and got into bed with her, but 'he didn't do anything. He was too drunk.' About an hour and a half later, defendant returned and took Mr. Ott home.

A couple of weeks later defendant took his daughter to Mr. Ott's apartment where she and Ott had sexual intercourse while defendant watched from a closet. Defendant had slacks on when he entered the closet and had only undershorts on when he came out shortly after the daughter and Mr. Ott had completed the act of intercourse. Defendant and the daughter then engaged in sexual intercourse.

The daughter also testified that on May 7, 1967 defendant took her to suite 'G' in an office building in Anaheim, which he was then using as his office, and that there defendant inserted a vibrator into her vagina and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her. She testified that defendant kept the vibrator, prophylactics and suppositories in the bottom of a couch in his office. The vibrator and a prophylactic were subsequently introduced into evidence, and Policewoman Wilson testified that she found these items in a couch which was identified as having been in defendant's office (suite 'G').

The daughter further testified that on June 4, 1967 defendant and she again went to the Ramada Inn in Riverside, where defendant registered and that thereafter they engaged in sexual intercourse in the rented room. Records from the Ramada Inn were introduced showing that defendant registered for a room on that date.

Mr. Ott testified and substantially corroborated the testimony of the daughter with respect to the events at the Ramada Inn on the night of April 5, 1967 and at his apartment several weeks later. He said that he met defendant at a bar and that defendant told him that 'he had a girl at the Ramada Inn that was too much for him sexually' and that defendant drove him on defendant's motorcycle from the bar to the Ramada Inn. Upon arrival there, defendant took him to a room where the daughter was in bed and asked him if he wanted to go to bed with her. Defendant let Ott into the room and then left. Defendant returned in about 45 minutes and gave Ott a ride home.

Ott further testified that about two weeks later defendant and the girl came to his apartment, that he let them in and that defendant asked him if he 'wanted to have sex with her.' Thereafter, Ott and the girl engaged in sexual intercourse, during which defendant was 'sort of peeking, looking out at us' from the closet. He said defendant entered the closet fully clothed and was naked when he emerged. Ott left the room, but shortly returned, and, on his return, he observed defendant and the girl having sexual intercourse. Ott did not find out until some time later that the girl was defendant's daughter.

Additionally, the following evidence was introduced tending to show that, after he was contacted by the police concerning his daughter, defendant fled the state.

On October 13, 1967, after the daughter had been removed from defendant's residence and placed in Juvenile Hall, Detective Sergeant Posey of the Anaheim Police Department, who had been investigating the case, had a telephone conversation with defendant in which he requested defendant to come to the police station immediately. Defendant replied that he could not come in at that moment,...