People v. Raquel
| Citation | 270 P.2d 528,125 Cal.App.2d 384 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2508 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RAQUEL. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
Henry W. Mahan, Benicia, Thomas E. Reynolds, public defender, Davis, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of Section 288 of the Penal Code and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
There would appear to be no reason for a detailed summary of the evidence at the trial. It is sufficient to note that an examination of the transcript discloses ample evidence to sustain the judgment. Defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial; that it was error for the court to permit the district attorney to interrogate him concerning prior conviction and his service of time therefor; and that he was denied the right under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5501 to have a determination as to whether or not he was a sexual psychopath prior to judgment and sentence.
In support of his first contention he argues that certain affidavits presented to the court in support of his motion for a new trial show that a different result might have been obtained had such evidence been presented upon the trial. It is the well established rule that the conclusion of the trial court in denying a motion for new trial based upon the grounds of newly discovered evidence will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal. This is true since the trial judge, because of his familiarity with the facts and circumstances of the entire case, is in a far better position to determine the effect and value of such evidence than is the reviewing court. Dry v. City & County of San Francisco, 83 Cal.App.2d 790, 189 P.2d 761. Consequently such a determination by the trial court will not be reversed unless it is '* * * affirmatively shown or manifestly appears that he has abused the sound discretion confided to him.' Perry v. Fowler, 102 Cal.App.2d 808, 229 P.2d 46. We find nothing in the record nor in the briefs of defendant that would in any way show that the trial court in the present case abused its discretion.
While the procedure followed by the district attorney in his examination of the defendant concerning prior conviction was not wholly proper, we cannot say that it was prejudicial. As stated in People v. Cordero, 92 Cal.App.2d 196, 206 P.2d 665, 668----
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pineda
...consideration of sexual psychopath proceedings: People v. Barnett (1946) 27 Cal.2d 649, 658--659, 166 P.2d 4; and People v. Raquel (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 384, 386, 270 P.2d 528.) Viewed in the light of decisions decreeing limited reversals (see cases last cited) it is clear that the question......
-
People v. Houghton
...for impeachment purposes on cross-examination and in proof of the charge of possession of a gun by an exconvict. (People v. Raquel, 125 Cal.App.2d 384, 270 P.2d 528; People v. DePrima, 172 Cal.App.2d 109, 341 P.2d 840.) Under the circumstances present here, therefore, the district attorney'......
-
People v. Saetern
...that he [or she] has abused the sound discretion confided to him [or her].' Perry v. Fowler, 102 Cal.App.2d 808." (People v. Raquel (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 384, 385.)B.Proposed Opinion Testimony by Dr. Caruso After the jury convicted defendant, defense counsel filed a motion for new trial bas......
-
People v. Garn
...appropriate proceedings under the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Act. FILES, P.J., and JEFFERSON, J., concur. 1 In People v. Raquel (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 384, 270 P.2d 528, and in People v. Hector (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 392, 231 P.2d 916, defendant had requested the institution of proceedi......