Rigby

Defendant was charged with the crime of rape, alleged to have been committed upon a girl eleven years of age. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty of assault with intent to commit rape. From the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial he has appealed.

But two points are urged as grounds for reversal.

1. The court permitted the district attorney, over the objection of defendant, to re-examine the prosecutrix upon matters about which she had been examined in chief.

Whether or not the court should permit such a re-examination is largely a matter of discretion, and the action of the court in so doing will not be disturbed unless a clear case of abuse of discretion is shown. (Rea v. Wood, 105 Cal. 314 , [ 38 Pac. 899 ]; People v. McNamara, 94 Cal. 509 , [ 29 Pac. 953 ].)

In the case at bar no such abuse of discretion is shown. On the contrary, the record, in our judgment, discloses a very proper case for the exercise of such discretion. Upon her direct examination the girl had testified that defendant had inserted his private parts in her private parts, but on cross-examination had made statements inconsistent therewith. Her testimony was thus left in a very…