People v. Jahn, Cr. 4453
Decision Date | 28 August 1950 |
Docket Number | Cr. 4453 |
Citation | 221 P.2d 333,99 Cal.App.2d 236 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PEOPLE v. JAHN. |
Gladys Towles Root, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, Gilbert Harelson, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the judgment. Defendant was charged by information with the crime of incest in three counts and adjudged guilty as charged. Defendant waived a jury. The act was committed with defendant's daughter who was 16 years of age.
It is contended on appeal, quoting from appellant's brief, that 'The verdict is contrary to the law and to the evidence.
'(1) The witness, Laura Lou John, is an accomplice.
'People v. Pettis, 95 Cal.App.2d 790, 213 P.2d 731;
'People v. Stoll, 84 Cal.App. 99, 257 P. 583;
'People v. Hamilton, 88 Cal.App.2d 398, 198 P.2d 907.
'Counsel for Appellant states that it is her honest and sincere conviction that these cases do not give true service to the legislative intent as regards Penal Code section 285, defining incest', and that 'There is not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice'.
In People v. Stratton, 141 Cal. 604, 75 P. 166, 168, which is an incest case, appears the following, There appears to be no division of opinion on this question as contended by appellant but, on the contrary, the law is uniform in support of the Stratton case. People v. Johnson, 115 Cal.App. 704, 705, 2 P.2d 216; People v. Herman, 97 Cal.App.2d ----, 217 P.2d 440; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tobias
...269 Cal.App.2d 900, 903-904, 75 Cal.Rptr. 397; People v. Bowles (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 317, 322, 2 Cal.Rptr. 896; People v. John (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 236, 237-238, 221 P.2d 333; People v. Herman (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 272, 276-277, 217 P.2d 440; People v. Pettis (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 790, 793-7......
-
People v. Tobias
...269 Cal.App.2d 900, 903-904, 75 Cal.Rptr. 397; People v. Bowles (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 317, 322, 2 Cal.Rptr. 896; People v. John (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 236, 237-238, 221 P.2d 333 [16-year-old participant in incest not accomplice]; People v. Pettis (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 790, 793-794, 213 P.2d 73......
-
People v. Hurd
...*'5 Being under the age of 18 years, the daughter could not as a matter of law be an accomplice to the crime of incest. (People v. Jahn, 99 Cal.App.2d 236, 221 P.2d 333; People v. Pettis, 95 Cal.App.2d 790, 213 P.2d 731.)6 The jury was fully instructed on the law pertaining to accomplices a......
-
The People v. Tovias
...fns. 5, 6 [dicta]; People v. Batres (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 900, 903-904; People v. Bowles (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 317, 322; People v. Jahn (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 236, 237-238 [16-year-old participant in incest not accomplice]; People v. Pettis (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 790, 793-794 [17-year-old parti......