People v. Redden

• Decision Date: 09 December 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 3103
• Citation: 9 Cal.Rptr. 368,187 Cal.App.2d 275
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John REDDEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 368

9 Cal.Rptr. 368

187 Cal.App.2d 275

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John REDDEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3103.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Dec. 9, 1960.

Harry J. Englebright, Sacramento, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by Nat Agliano, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PEEK, Justice.

By indictment the defendant, John Redden, was charged with violations of sections 261, 288 and 288a of the Penal Code, involving his twelve-year-old stepdaughter. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction, which was entered pursuant to the jury's verdict finding him guilty on all counts, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Four contentions are made: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct; (3) that the trial court erred in the admission of certain testimony; and (4) that the defendant was represented by incompetent counsel. From our examination of the record, we conclude that defendant's contentions are without merit and that the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

It does not appear necessary to set forth the evidence in detail. It is sufficient to note that the prosecutrix described in great detail the various acts with which the defendant was charged. Her testimony was corroborated in part by her mother, a neighbor, and the doctor who examined her following defendant's arrest. While it is true that the evidence is not without conflict and that much of it is open to question, nevertheless it was sufficient, if believed by the jury (which it obviously was), to support the conviction.

Defendant's next contention relates to certain acts of misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney. Counsel concedes that while it would be difficult to say that any one act would compel a reversal, yet when all are considered collectively the record discloses a course of conduct by the district attorney which deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

He first attacks the action of the district attorney at the outset of the trial in using the word 'sordid' in reference to the statement by the prosecutrix to her mother regarding defendant's actions. After a review of the evidence, it hardly can be doubted but that this characterization was entirely accurate. However, even if not, it cannot be said to go beyond legitimate comment by the district attorney (People v. Carr, 163 Cal.App.2d 568, 329 P.2d 746).

Defendant's next contention relates to certain questions asked by the prosecution which defendant argues were for the sole purpose of showing that defendant did not believe in God. There can be no question but that defendant's religious beliefs were in no way relevant to the issues before the jury. However, it appears that defendant's counsel first opened the door to this line of questioning and secondly, that no objection was made when the district attorney further pursued his questioning. Under such circumstances, the alleged error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (People v. Stuart, 168 Cal.App.2d 57, 62, 335 P.2d 189).

Defendant also attacks the district attorney's conduct in his cross-examination of defendant's sister. On direct-examination, she had testified that defendant's general reputation in the community was that of a nonviolent individual. Apparently this was relevant only to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix to the effect that she had not reported the acts committed by defendant because of her fear of him. The district attorney had asked if the witness was 'aware of his various arrests for drinking and disorderly conduct and fighting and things like...