People v. Barber

California Court of Appeal

People v. Barber

38 P.2d 798, 3 Cal. App. 2d 124, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1147

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 17, 1934

DocketCrim. 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 P.2d 798 (People v. Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Barber, 38 P.2d 798, 3 Cal. App. 2d 124, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

*125 THE COURT.

The defendant was charged with an attempt to commit the infamous crime against nature, and has appealed from the judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for a new trial. He claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

The testimony shows without conflict that he placed his private parts between the thighs of a boy; that this continued several minutes and was accompanied by movements indicating an attempt to accomplish the crime. While the defendant and the boy testified that there was no penetration the circumstances not only tended to show the contrary, but were sufficient to justify the conclusion that defendant was attempting to commit the crime against nature. The offense might be proved by circumstantial evidence (State v. Vergenadis, 50 Nev. 1 [248 Pac. 900]; State v. Smith, 137 Mo. 25 [38 S. W. 717]; People v. Singh, 93 Cal. App. 32 [268 Pac. 958]), and the jury was not, in view of the circumstances, bound to believe the testimony of either the defendant or the boy in the above respect. There was ample evidence to support the verdict, and the order and judgment are accordingly affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*125 THE COURT.

The defendant was charged with an attempt to commit the infamous crime against nature, and has appealed from the judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for a new trial. He claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

The testimony shows without conflict that he placed his private parts between the thighs of a boy; that this continued several minutes and was accompanied by movements indicating an attempt to accomplish the crime. While the defendant and the boy testified that there was no penetration the circumstances not only tended to show the contrary, but were sufficient to justify the conclusion that defendant was attempting to commit the crime against nature. The offense might be proved by circumstantial evidence (State v. Vergenadis, 50 Nev. 1 [248 Pac. 900]; State v. Smith, 137 Mo. 25 [38 S. W. 717]; People v. Singh, 93 Cal. App. 32 [268 Pac. 958]), and the jury was not, in view of the circumstances, bound to believe the testimony of either the defendant or the boy in the above respect. There was ample evidence to support the verdict, and the order and judgment are accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 P.2d 798, 3 Cal. App. 2d 124, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barber-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack