Kruvosky

People v. Kruvosky

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 446·53 Cal. App. 744·200 P. 831
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 5, 1921Crim. No. 962.California3,204 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of rape. The first objection of the appellant that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence may be disposed of briefly. The verdict is supported by the testimony of Jessie Montgomery, the prosecutrix, and by the testimony of Jean Stanley, who was her companion on the night of the crime. The jury believed this testimony, which was corroborated in part by the physical condition of the two women, who were bruised and beaten when found by the police within a short time after the assaults upon them, and by other evidence. Counsel for appellant argued to the jury and now argues to this court that the testimony of the two girls should not be believed. It is urged that the testimony of the prosecutrix in the present case differs from her testimony in the trial of a similar case against another defendant for a crime committed at the same place on the same evening. The testimony in the other case was introduced in evidence in the present case. Any apparent contradiction between it and the testimony in the present case was explained by the witness herself upon the stand. The argument of the appellant as to the…

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.