Rankins

People v. Rankins

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 3d 1163·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2732·224 Cal. Rptr. 282
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1986A029505California1,165 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

Defendant and appellant appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court of San Francisco County entered after a jury found him guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b) (lewd act upon a child under 14 years by force), a violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c) (forcible oral copulation), a violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (2) (forcible rape), and a violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 261 (attempted rape). Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting appellant’s pretrial statement because it was taken in violation of an agreement between the defense counsel (O’Connor) and the deputy district attorney (Eto).

For the purpose of resolving the issue presented in this case, it is not necessary to set out the facts surrounding the convictions.

Upon his surrendering to the police on June 22, 1983, appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and waived them and gave a statement which essentially denied the facts which led to the charges. Before trial it was agreed between defense counsel and the deputy district attorney that appellant would voluntarily submit to a polygraph examination. The deputy district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.