Hubbard

Defendant was convicted of a violation of section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code following a jury trial. His motion for a new trial was denied and he now appeals from that order and from the judgment.

On appeal defendant contends (1) that the court erred in admitting evidence of alleged prior misconduct; (2) that the court erred in giving an instruction on the element of intent; (3) that the court abused its discretion in refusing his proffered evidence concerning his reputation for morality ; and (4) that the court abused its discretion in not allowing him to introduce evidence concerning the reputation for truthfulness of a prosecuting witness.

Since it is our conclusion that the court erred as set forth in defendant’s first contention (which is likewise applicable to his second contention) it is necessary to examine the entire record to determine if such error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4½.) We therefore have summarized the evidence in detail.

The prosecution’s case consisted of testimony by the prosecutrix, by a detective sergeant of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s office, by the chief investigator for the district attorney’s…