Valencia

The defendant was charged by an information in two counts with the offense of statutory rape. At the time of the trial the prosecutrix testified that she did not have sexual intercourse with the defendant on the day of June 13, 1926, as alleged in the second count, and for that reason it was dismissed. She did, however, testify that the offense charged in the first count was committed on June 6, 1926. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on this count and the defendant appeals from the judgment pronounced thereon and also from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

While put by appellant in several different forms, his attack upon the judgment amounts to this: (1) That the corpus delicti was not proved and the confession of defendant was improperly admitted; (2) that the court erred in permitting the prosecutrix to testify concerning the act, because she demonstrated a lack of knowledge sufficient for a basis of discrimination; (3) that counsel’s argument at the time of trial was erroneously curtailed; (4) that the court refused to give a requested instruction; and (5) that the evidence is so incredible, improbable and far from being clear and convincing that it is…