133 Cal. at 13 Court's duty to instruct jury on specific charged act18 citing casesseveral acts of rape over a course of several months
- People v. Norman, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168 [ 65 P. 323 ]; CALJIC No. 17.01; but see People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 792 P.2d 643 ].) “This requirement of un…
- People v. Hawkins, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168 [ 65 P. 323 ]; CALJIC No. 17.01; but see People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 792 P.2d 643 ].) *1453 “This requirement…
- People v. Russo, 25 P.3d 641 (Cal. 2001).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168 [ 65 P. 323 ]; CALJIC No. 17.01; but see People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 792 P.2d 643 ].) This requirement of una…
- People v. Sutherland, 17 Cal. App. 4th 602 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).published(multiple acts of rape over several months)
- People v. Brown, 234 Cal. App. 3d 918 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).published Here, since the Mexican surgeries were clearly relevant, the jury was properly instructed it could only use the Mexican acts to help it decide if the California acts constituted the charged crime. *935 IV (9a) Brown contends the trial cour…
- People v. Dell, 232 Cal. App. 3d 248 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [65 R 13]; People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 354 , 643 P.2d 971 ].) As the court in People v. Ramirez (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 603, 612-613 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 645 ], explained:…
- People v. Muniz, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1508 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ].) Here, Muniz contends the testimony supported two alternative theories for Sherri’s injuries: (1) she fell onto the parking lot because of a struggle with Muniz; or (2) Muniz struck he…
- People v. Gunn, 197 Cal. App. 3d 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 282 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 354 , 643 P.2d 971 ]; People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 215-216 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ].) It is the general rule in…
- People v. Jones, 180 Cal. App. 3d 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).published(People v. Failla (1966) 64 Cal.2d 560, 568 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 103 , 414 P.2d 39 ]; People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168 [ 65 P. 323 ]; People v. Epps (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 691, 701…
- People v. Gonzalez, 141 Cal. App. 3d 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).publishedII THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS A. CALJIC No. 17.01 (3) Appellant points out that the evidence supported two incidents of vaginal penetration, one before and one immediately after the sodomy. [2] He argues that since the trial court failed to ins…
Show 5 more citing cases
- People v. Masten, 137 Cal. App. 3d 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).published(People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168 [ 65 P. 323 ]; People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ].) If the defendant is prosecuted for violation of a statute under which any one of several different acts could constitute the…
- People v. Diedrich, 643 P.2d 971 (Cal. 1982).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; cf. People v. Rogers (1978) 21 Cal.3d 542, 550 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 579 P.2d 1048 ].) He is correct.
- People v. Epps, 122 Cal. App. 3d 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).publishedThe rule that the entire jury must agree on the act or acts of which the defendant is guilty has a long case history beginning with People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ].
- People v. Madden, 116 Cal. App. 3d 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).published(several acts of rape over a course of several months)
- People v. Crume, 61 Cal. App. 3d 803 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).published(See People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Ruiz (1920) 48 Cal.App. 693, 694-695 [ 192 P. 327 ].) Nor does it appear that the district attorney voluntarily made an election before argument to the jury.
133 Cal. at 12 cited at this page8 citing cases
- People v. Harrison, 768 P.2d 1078 (Cal. 1989).published (People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 12-13 [ 65 P. 13 ]; see also, CALJIC No. 17.01.) Such a rule ensures that all jurors agree beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the same act, and provides defendant with a reasonable…
- People v. Sanchez, 208 Cal. App. 3d 721 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).published“The same thing, again, in second grade, just talking about one act from—and as you can see, the school year is divided up.” (Italics added.) 9 The due process concern derives from the following statements in People v. Castro (1901) 133 Ca…
- People v. Diaz, 195 Cal. App. 3d 1375 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).published(See People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168-169 [ 65 P. 323 ]; People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 12-13 [ 65 P. 13 ].) The California Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the rule in 1982.
- People v. Deletto, 147 Cal. App. 3d 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).published The People acknowledge that the failure to give CALJIC No. *465 17.01 was error. 4 (People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 354 , 643 P.2d 971 ]; People v. Williams (1901) 133 Cal. 165, 168 [ 65 P. 323 ]; People v. Cas…
- People v. Montgomery, 61 Cal. App. 3d 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).published(People v. Castro (1901) 133 Cal. 11, 12 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Flood (1894) 102 Cal. 330, 331 [ 36 P. 663 ]; People v. Perkin (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 365, 367 [ 197 P.2d 39 ].) The trial judge has broad discretion in passing upon such a *72…
- People v. Roubus, 417 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1966).published(People v. Castro, 133 Cal. 11, 12 [ 65 P. 13 ]; People v. Flood, 102 Cal. 330, 331 [ 36 P. 663 ]; People v. Abbott, 132 Cal.App. 109, 112 [ 22 P.2d 566 ]; see People v. Perkin, 87 Cal.App.2d 365, 367 [ 197 P.2d 39 ].) The *221 trial judge…
- People v. Vetrano, 228 P.2d 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).publishedThe doctrine in this regard is thus declared in People v. Castro, 133 Cal. 11, 12 [ 65 P. 13 ]: “Where, as in this case, there is a continuation of the relation of intimacy and illicit intercourse between the parties to the offense, eviden…
- People v. Jewett, 190 P.2d 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948).published(People v. Hall, 25 Cal.App.2d 336, 339 [ 77 P.2d 244 ]; People v. Troutman, 187 Cal. 313, 318 [ 201 P. 928 ] ; People v. Foster, 117 Cal.App. 439, 443 [ 4 P.2d 173 ] ; People v. Fuhrman, 130 Cal.App. 267, 269 [ 19 P.2d 821 ]; People v. Ko…
v.
EULOGIO CASTRO, Respondent
Lead Opinion
—Defendant was convicted of the crime of rape. The superior court granted a motion for a new trial, and the state appeals. The offense is alleged by the information to have been committed upon June 30, 1899, and the prosecutrix was alleged to have been under the age of consent. At the-trial, four separate acts of sexual intercourse committed by defendant were sworn to by the prosecutrix. These acts were proven under objection of defendant, and covered a period of time extending over several months. No one of the acts was proven to have been committed upon the thirtieth day of June. It is not material, upon this appeal, as to the particular ground upon which the court based its order granting the new trial; for if the order should have been made upon any one of the grounds raised by defendant, it will be affirmed. (Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 276; In re Martin, 113 Cal. 481.)
The doctrine appears to be fairly well settled, that, in actions of adultery, seduction, etc., evidence of sexual intercourse between the parties, both before and after the particular act charged, may be introduced in evidence, as tending to sustain the main allegation. Chief Justice Bartch, in his dissenting opinion in the case of State v. Hilberg, 61 Pac. Rep. 215, thus states the rule: “ Where, as in this case, there is a continuation of the relation of intimacy and illicit intercourse between the parties to the offense, evidence of improper familiarity and adulterous acts both before and after the act charged is admissible. Such evidence is received to prove the adulterous disposition in the parties implicated. This appears to be the rule sanctioned by the weight of recent authority.” The cases cited by him to support the proposition advanced may well be declared to constitute the great weight of authority.
The Hilberg case, in its facts, and upon the record, is very similar to the case at bar, and many of the reasons there advanced by the court for a reversal of the judgment appeal strongly to.the court here. Under the instructions given to the jury in the case at bar, the defendant should have been[*13] convicted, if any one of the various acts of intercourse sworn to by the prosecutrix was established beyond a reasonable doubt; but, certainly, the defendant was not called upon to defend himself against all of these respective acts of intercourse, extending through a period of several months. The information only charged one act, and upon that allegation the case must stand or fall. Possibly, any one of the acts sworn to by the prosecutrix could have been selected by the state as the act charged in the pleading, but the entire four acts could not be so selected. The state, at the commencement of the trial, should have been required to select the particular act upon which it relied to make good the allegation of the information. This was not done; and even conceding that the failure to make such election at that time did not constitute error because of the want of demand upon the part of the defendant to make the election, still, when the case went to the jury, the court, in some form, should have directed their minds to the particular act of intercourse which it was incumbent upon the state to establish by the evidence, before a verdict of guilty could be returned against the defendant. This was not done.
Under the evidence disclosed by the record, a verdict of guilty or not guilty was the only verdict which could be properly rendered in the case.
For the foregoing reasons the order is affirmed.
Van Dyke, J., concurred.
Concurrence
I concur in the affirmance of ■the order appealed from, for the reason, in addition to that given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Garoutte, that the court erred in admitting evidence of acts of sexual intercourse committed subsequent to the particular act selected by the prosecution in support of the information. The defendant could be convicted only upon proof of the act selected, and any evidence of subsequent acts would create no more than a presumption of his guilt, arising from the establishment of a disposition in that direction. A person charged with a crime is not to be convicted upon evidence that he has at another time committed a similar crime. The evidence thus admitted was manifestly prejudicial to the defendant, and should have been excluded.