296 P. 692 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1931
Defendant was convicted upon a charge of violating the provisions of section
The alleged victim of appellant was five years of age on April 30th, it was charged in the information that appellant committed the crime upon her on May 16th, and the trial of the charge commenced on August 5th, all in 1930. It is provided by section
This identical question received a most thorough consideration at our hands nearly ten years ago in People v. Delaney,
We think, as it finally turns out, that the trial judge exercised a proper discretion in permitting the child to testify.
[2] Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give a certain instruction, setting it forth. No argument is advanced nor is authority cited to show that the proposed instruction contained a statement of the law. It is only said that "the law as set forth in the refused instruction" was not covered by any instruction given, and that the jury should have been "fully instructed on this question of law". Such a presentation gives us nothing to decide.
[3] The same objection applies to questions attempted to be presented as to other instructions which were refused. In addition, we are convinced as to these particular instructions that they either do not state the law or were not required under the evidence, or that they were covered by instructions given.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Claig, J., and Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred. *150