Fulcher

Believing as I do that unlawful sexual intercourse is the classic example of a malum prohibitum crime which no more shows a general readiness to do evil than does, say, conspiracy to tattoo a person under the age of 18, (People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 314, fn. 7 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 696 P.2d 111 ]), I would conclude that Fulcher’s statutory rape prior is inadmissible as a matter of law under the Collins test.

On remand, therefore, I would direct the trial court not to permit use of the statutory rape prior for the purpose of impeachment.

ELKINGTON, Acting P.J.

Defendant Anthony Dwayne Fulcher (Fulcher) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury's verdict finding him guilty of the crime of first degree burglary. He makes no contention that the evidence placed before the jury did not constitute substantial proof of his guilt.

(1) The first of Fulcher's appellate contentions is that: "The court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress a statement obtained in violation of appellant's rights under Miranda v. Arizona . "

We state the facts as relevant and material to the contention.

A citizen reported to police headquarters that a burglary had just occurred at a certain address, and two officers promptly responded. The time was about six o'clock in the morning. One of the officers testified: "On the way, we kept getting broadcasts from the dispatcher, she said that the witness had said they are leaving the house. They are climbing over the back fences going eastbound. There are two M.N.'s. Before we had stopped and gotten out of the car, as she had already told us, one of them is a slender build, brown leather jacket, blue jeans, with a brown snap-brim cap. And at that point, we didn't receive any…

Defendant Anthony Dwayne Fulcher (Fulcher) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict finding him guilty of the crime of first degree burglary. He makes no contention that the evidence placed before the jury did not constitute substantial proof of his guilt.

The first of Fulcher’s appellate contentions is that: “The court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress a statement obtained in violation of appellant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona.”

We state the facts as relevant and material to the contention.

A citizen reported to police headquarters that a burglary had just occurred at a certain address, and two officers promptly responded. The time was about six o’clock in the morning. One of the officers testified: “On the way, we kept getting broadcasts from the dispatcher, she said that the witness had said they are leaving the house. They are climbing over the back fences going eastbound. There are two M.N.’s. Before we had stopped and gotten out of the car, as she had already told us, one of them is a slender build, brown leather jacket, blue jeans, with a brown snap-brim cap. And at that point, we didn’t receive any other information----[We saw a…