district attorney committed prejudicial error in California

1964The rules pertaining to corroboration are clearly stated in the recent ease of People v. Bawden, 208 Cal.App.2d 589, 596 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 368 ], The court stated that ‘' Corroboration is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the jury that the woman is telling the truth. ...

1964The rules pertaining to corroboration are clearly stated in the recent ease of People v. Bawden, 208 Cal.App.2d 589, 596 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 368 ], The court stated that ‘' Corroboration is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the jury that the woman is telling the truth. ...

1962Hence, although the instructions as to such differences were manifestly erroneous, the errors cannot have prejudiced the appealing defendant. ’ ’ A like statement of the law was made by the court in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 854, 855 [ 172 P.2d 686 ], (See also People v. Lindley, supra, 26 Cal.2d 780, 793 ; People v. Peterson, supra, 29 Cal.2d 69, 78-79; People v. Lessard, 58 Cal.2d 447, 452-453 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 78 , 375 P.2d 46 ].) Alleged Misconduct op the Disteict Attoeney The defendant claims that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in the cross-examination of the sole c

1962Hence, although the instructions as to such differences were manifestly erroneous, the errors cannot have prejudiced the appealing defendant. ’ ’ A like statement of the law was made by the court in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 854, 855 [ 172 P.2d 686 ], (See also People v. Lindley, supra, 26 Cal.2d 780, 793 ; People v. Peterson, supra, 29 Cal.2d 69, 78-79; People v. Lessard, 58 Cal.2d 447, 452-453 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 78 , 375 P.2d 46 ].) Alleged Misconduct op the Disteict Attoeney The defendant claims that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in the cross-examination of the sole c

1962Hence, although the instructions as to such differences were manifestly erroneous, the errors cannot have prejudiced the appealing defendant. ’ ’ A like statement of the law was made by the court in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 854, 855 [ 172 P.2d 686 ], (See also People v. Lindley, supra, 26 Cal.2d 780, 793 ; People v. Peterson, supra, 29 Cal.2d 69, 78-79; People v. Lessard, 58 Cal.2d 447, 452-453 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 78 , 375 P.2d 46 ].) Alleged Misconduct op the Disteict Attoeney The defendant claims that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in the cross-examination of the sole c

1962Hence, although the instructions as to such differences were manifestly erroneous, the errors cannot have prejudiced the appealing defendant. ’ ’ A like statement of the law was made by the court in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 854, 855 [ 172 P.2d 686 ], (See also People v. Lindley, supra, 26 Cal.2d 780, 793 ; People v. Peterson, supra, 29 Cal.2d 69, 78-79; People v. Lessard, 58 Cal.2d 447, 452-453 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 78 , 375 P.2d 46 ].) Alleged Misconduct op the Disteict Attoeney The defendant claims that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in the cross-examination of the sole c

1962Hence, although the instructions as to such differences were manifestly erroneous, the errors cannot have prejudiced the appealing defendant. ’ ’ A like statement of the law was made by the court in People v. Dorman, 28 Cal.2d 846, 854, 855 [ 172 P.2d 686 ], (See also People v. Lindley, supra, 26 Cal.2d 780, 793 ; People v. Peterson, supra, 29 Cal.2d 69, 78-79; People v. Lessard, 58 Cal.2d 447, 452-453 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 78 , 375 P.2d 46 ].) Alleged Misconduct op the Disteict Attoeney The defendant claims that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in the cross-examination of the sole c

1960(People v. Gay, 37 Cal.App.2d 246, 247 [ 99 P.2d 371 ].) Defendant next contends that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in cross-examining defendant’s character witnesses who had testified to defendant’s good reputation as to the traits of morality, chastity and heterosexuality.

1960(People v. Gay, 37 Cal.App.2d 246, 247 [ 99 P.2d 371 ].) Defendant next contends that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in cross-examining defendant’s character witnesses who had testified to defendant’s good reputation as to the traits of morality, chastity and heterosexuality.

1960(People v. Brubaker, 53 Cal.2d 37, 48 [ 346 P.2d 8 ].) Defendant’s final argument on appeal is that the district attorney committed prejudicial error during the cross-examination of the defendant about his relationship with his wife, as follows: “By Mr. Sutter: Q.

1960(People v. Brubaker, 53 Cal.2d 37, 48 [ 346 P.2d 8 ].) Defendant’s final argument on appeal is that the district attorney committed prejudicial error during the cross-examination of the defendant about his relationship with his wife, as follows: “By Mr. Sutter: Q.

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1959If it does, then it is admissible, whether it embraces the *564 commission of another crime or does not, whether the other crime be similar in kind or not, whether it be part of a single design or not.’ ” {People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 314 [1] [ 169 P.2d 924 ].) This rule is stated in various ways but it is consistently adhered to in this state. {People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288 [4] [ 294 P.2d 32 ] ; People v. Edwards, 159 Cal.App.2d 208, 212 [2] [ 323 P.2d 484 ]; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 450 [5] [ 323 P.2d 1020 ] ; People v. Freytas, 157 Cal.App. 2d 706, 719 [11] [ 321 P.2

1957Defendant on this appeal concedes there is a conflict in the evidence as to his presence at the scenes on the evenings charged, but argues that the facts presented bring the case within the “close case rule,” and since the district attorney committed prejudicial error in his closing argument, particularly by referring to defendant as “an experienced and pro *364 fessional armed robber” and as “an experienced, virtually professional armed robber,” such error requires a reversal of the judgment of conviction, citing such authority as People v. Ford, 89 Cal.App.2d 467 [ 200 P.2d 867 ]; People v.

1957Defendant on this appeal concedes there is a conflict in the evidence as to his presence at the scenes on the evenings charged, but argues that the facts presented bring the case within the “close case rule,” and since the district attorney committed prejudicial error in his closing argument, particularly by referring to defendant as “an experienced and pro *364 fessional armed robber” and as “an experienced, virtually professional armed robber,” such error requires a reversal of the judgment of conviction, citing such authority as People v. Ford, 89 Cal.App.2d 467 [ 200 P.2d 867 ]; People v.

1957(People v. Dement, 48 Cal.2d 600, 604 [4] [ 311 P.2d 505 ]; People v. De Moss, 4 Cal.2d 469, 474 [4] [ 50 P.2d 1031 ]; People v. Flemming, 218 Cal. 300, 309 [3] [ 23 P.2d 28 ].) Second: The district attorney committed prejudicial error: (а) In his opening statement wherein he said Paul would testify that about a year prior to October 1, 1956, defendant sent him out to buy a paper when his mother was not home and that when Paul returned his sister made an immediate complaint of a sexual proposition defendant had made to her.

1957(People v. Dement, 48 Cal.2d 600, 604 [4] [ 311 P.2d 505 ]; People v. De Moss, 4 Cal.2d 469, 474 [4] [ 50 P.2d 1031 ]; People v. Flemming, 218 Cal. 300, 309 [3] [ 23 P.2d 28 ].) Second: The district attorney committed prejudicial error: (а) In his opening statement wherein he said Paul would testify that about a year prior to October 1, 1956, defendant sent him out to buy a paper when his mother was not home and that when Paul returned his sister made an immediate complaint of a sexual proposition defendant had made to her.

1957(People v. Dement, 48 Cal.2d 600, 604 [4] [ 311 P.2d 505 ]; People v. De Moss, 4 Cal.2d 469, 474 [4] [ 50 P.2d 1031 ]; People v. Flemming, 218 Cal. 300, 309 [3] [ 23 P.2d 28 ].) Second: The district attorney committed prejudicial error: (а) In his opening statement wherein he said Paul would testify that about a year prior to October 1, 1956, defendant sent him out to buy a paper when his mother was not home and that when Paul returned his sister made an immediate complaint of a sexual proposition defendant had made to her.

1957(People v. Dement, 48 Cal.2d 600, 604 [4] [ 311 P.2d 505 ]; People v. De Moss, 4 Cal.2d 469, 474 [4] [ 50 P.2d 1031 ]; People v. Flemming, 218 Cal. 300, 309 [3] [ 23 P.2d 28 ].) Second: The district attorney committed prejudicial error: (а) In his opening statement wherein he said Paul would testify that about a year prior to October 1, 1956, defendant sent him out to buy a paper when his mother was not home and that when Paul returned his sister made an immediate complaint of a sexual proposition defendant had made to her.

1957(People v. Dement, 48 Cal.2d 600, 604 [4] [ 311 P.2d 505 ]; People v. De Moss, 4 Cal.2d 469, 474 [4] [ 50 P.2d 1031 ]; People v. Flemming, 218 Cal. 300, 309 [3] [ 23 P.2d 28 ].) Second: The district attorney committed prejudicial error: (а) In his opening statement wherein he said Paul would testify that about a year prior to October 1, 1956, defendant sent him out to buy a paper when his mother was not home and that when Paul returned his sister made an immediate complaint of a sexual proposition defendant had made to her.

1957(People v. Dement, 48 Cal.2d 600, 604 [4] [ 311 P.2d 505 ]; People v. De Moss, 4 Cal.2d 469, 474 [4] [ 50 P.2d 1031 ]; People v. Flemming, 218 Cal. 300, 309 [3] [ 23 P.2d 28 ].) Second: The district attorney committed prejudicial error: (а) In his opening statement wherein he said Paul would testify that about a year prior to October 1, 1956, defendant sent him out to buy a paper when his mother was not home and that when Paul returned his sister made an immediate complaint of a sexual proposition defendant had made to her.

1951(People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478 , 487 et seq. [ 165 P.2d 3 ].) People v. Heacock, 10 Cal.App. 450, 456 [ 102 P. 543 ], relied on by defendant, is not here applicable for in the cited ease defendant’s wife was not a codefendant, and the remark as to her failure to take the witness stand and testify was made not in reference to her but with reference to her husband, the defendant. (c) Defendant’s claim that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in making reference in his argument to defendant’s connection with his partnership will not be considered for the reason that defendant did

1951(People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478 , 487 et seq. [ 165 P.2d 3 ].) People v. Heacock, 10 Cal.App. 450, 456 [ 102 P. 543 ], relied on by defendant, is not here applicable for in the cited ease defendant’s wife was not a codefendant, and the remark as to her failure to take the witness stand and testify was made not in reference to her but with reference to her husband, the defendant. (c) Defendant’s claim that the district attorney committed prejudicial error in making reference in his argument to defendant’s connection with his partnership will not be considered for the reason that defendant did