People v. Mitchell, Cr. 2732
| Decision Date | 26 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2732 |
| Citation | 148 Cal.App.2d 733,307 P.2d 411 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David S. MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harold L. Abbott, Susanville, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Lloyd Hinkleman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of a violation of section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Appellant appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment entered.
The record reveals that a motion for a new trial was made and denied on August 29, 1956. Thereafter, there was a hearing in the superior court to determine whether the appellant was a sexual psychopath within the meaning of chapter 4 of part 1 of division 6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, § 5500 et seq. The pronouncement of sentence was suspended pending the hearing. After hearing this matter, the proceedings were dismissed, and the appellant was referred back to the superior court, sitting as a juvenile court. He was then sentenced to one year in the county jail.
Davis S. Mitchell was accused of violating section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The information specifically charged that he '* * * willfully and unlawfully fondled the genitals of one Lewis * * * then of the age of sixteen.' It further charged that such acts 'caused or tended to cause and encourage the said Lewis * * * to become and remain a minor child * * * who is in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd and immoral life.'
Briefly, the facts are: Lewis approached Mitchell for a job on his ranch. Mitchell refused to hire Lewis unless he was 16. To verify the boy's age, the two drove to Lewis' home where his mother showed Mitchell Lewis' birth certificate which showed the boy was 16. The mother then gave Lewis permission to drive to Reno with Mitchell where Mitchell intended to purchase fencing material for his ranch. The trip was made. The two returned. Lewis then obtained permission to spend the night at Mitchell's home. Lewis was shown to his bedroom, he undressed and went to bed. Later Mitchell got into bed with Lewis. Lewis testified that after Mitchell was in bed with him, '* * * all of a sudden he grabbed my privates; and I say, why, what you doing; and he made a chuckle.' Mitchell then turned over, and after he went to sleep, Lewis dressed and left the house. Mitchell awoke while Lewis was still in the house. He followed Lewis who went to the police station to seek help. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blount
...see State v. Hunt, 8 Ariz.App. 514, 447 P.2d 896 (1968); People v. Owens, 13 Mich.App. 469, 164 N.W.2d 712 (1968); People v. Mitchell, 148 Cal.App.2d 733, 307 P.2d 411 (1957); Montgomery v. State, 115 Ind.App. 189, 57 N.E.2d 943 (1944); but see State v. Miclau, 167 Ohio St. 38, 146 N.E.2d 2......
-
State v. Gans
...See Williams v. City of Malvern, 222 Ark. 432, 261 S.W.2d 6; People v. Ostrowski, 334 Ill.App. 494, 80 N.E.2d 89; and People v. Mitchell, 148 Cal.App.2d 733, 307 P.2d 411. The acts upon which the complaints herein are based are the consents of defendants to Kay's misrepresenting her age and......
-
R., In re
...142; People v. Cohen, 62 Cal.App. 521, 526, 217 P. 78; People v. Kinser, 99 Cal.App. 778, 782, 279 P. 488; see also People v. Mitchell, 148 Cal.App.2d 733, 307 P.2d 411; People v. Reznick, 75 Cal.App.2d 832, 171 P.2d 952; People v. McDougal, 74 Cal.App. 666, 241 P. Language sufficiently def......
-
People v. Norris
...or remain a delinquent. It is not necessary that the prosecution show that the act actually had that result. (People v. Mitchell, 148 Cal.App.2d 733, 734, 307 P.2d 411.) It is no defense that the minor was already leading an immoral life, since the statute punishes acts which tend to cause ......