People v. Butler

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 647·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1020·47 Cal. App. 3d 273
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1975Crim. 7592California3,690 words

Opinion

Opinion

Janes, J.

Defendant was charged by information with oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a), attempted forcible rape (Pen. Code, §§261, subd. 2, 664), and attempted rape by threat of harm (Pen. Code, §§261, subd. 3, 664). He was convicted by jury on the charges of oral copulation and attempted forcible rape. Sentenced to state prison on both counts, the sentences to be served concurrently, he appeals from the judgment.

The principal contention advanced by defendant, which we will sustain, is that the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing the jury’s request, midway in its deliberation, that the testimony of five /witnesses be reread. In view of the fact that our resolution of the contention will be dispositive of the appeal, our recitation of the facts will be confined almost wholly to the testimony of those five witnesses.

The Relevant Facts

The prosecution’s first witness was Tammy U. (“Tammy”), the 14-year-old victim. On December 21, 1973, at 3:30 in the afternoon, Tammy went to the home of Mrs. Holliday, two doors from Tammy’s home, to babysit Mrs. Holliday’s two children. Tammy put the children to bed at approximately 9:30 p.m., watched television until some time…

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.