People v. Johnson

Good Law
106 Cal. 289·1895 Cal. LEXIS 602·39 P. 622
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 9, 1895No. 21181California1,457 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

The defendant was convicted of a felony, and now prosecutes this appeal to secure a reversal of the judgment and a new trial.

*292 1. The motion to set aside the information was properly overruled, and likewise the demurrer to the information. The defendant was charged with the offense of assault with intent to commit rape by means of force and violence. At the trial the prosecutrix testified that she was but twelve years of age, and that she gained such information from certain entries made in the family Bible. A motion to strike out her testimony as to her age, upon the ground that it was hearsay, was denied, and this ruling of the court is relied upon as error. In this state the age of consent is fixed by the statute at fourteen years. There was no testimony whatever offered upon the part of the defendant that the witness was fourteen years of age, and her oldest sister testified positively that she was but twelve. Under these circumstances we conclude the ruling of the court, if wrong, was harmless error.

2. A witness, James Woolery, brother of the prosecutrix, testified that after the alleged assault he went to the shoemaker-shop of one Pfend, found the defendant there,…

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.