Forbes

We hold in part that the word “stranger” in Penal Code section 1203.066 has no technical meaning peculiar to the law and therefore that the trial court did not err in refusing an instruction which purported to define the word.

Statement of the Case

On February 23, 1994, an information was filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court charging appellant Hilton Forbes with commission of a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a), count I) and penetration with a foreign object of the genital opening of a child under the age of 14 and more than 10 years younger than the defendant (§ 289, subd. (j), count II). As to each count, it was alleged appellant was a stranger to the victim within the meaning of section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(3). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.

Jury trial began on May 16, 1994. On May 18, appellant was convicted of both charges and the special allegation was found to be true. His subsequent motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced to six years in prison. This timely appeal followed.

Statement of Facts

Discussion

I, II.*

III. Failure to Define “Stranger”

In a…