Even passing over the lack of a request for it, we disagree. Defendant, of course, claims that the ruling came too late. To the contrary, it was the court itself which eventually ruled that the impeachment had become "cumulative, that it might be prejudicial" and should not be pursued any further. We could dispose of any claim respecting the wife by pointing out that extremely able counsel for defendant, who made numerous objections throughout the trial, never claimed that the cross-examination with respect to the inconsistent statements to the police became prejudicially repetitive. There was no error committed with respect to either witness. ![]() At the trial he too recanted when called by the prosecution and later, as a defense witness, claimed that S. had confirmed this in his statement to the police. had testified that on occasions when defendant came home early in the afternoon, he would send D. Brown claimed that she had lied to the police because she was angry with defendant.ĭ.'s testimony was relevant to a very narrow issue: S. ![]() I am sure she could eventually handle all of me." At the trial Mrs. This confession was supposedly embellished with statements such as: ". Brown then reported the matter to the police and gave a statement to the effect that the night before defendant had confessed to "having an affair" with S. The next morning defendant's wife questioned S. During that discussion defendant made some statement about his relationship with S. The background to this claim is as follows: during the night of May 1, 1969, defendant and his wife had a discussion concerning his going out in the evening. In particular defendant claims error in repetitive questioning concerning statements they retracted when called as witnesses by the People. Such additional facts as are necessary will be stated in connection with our discussion of defendant's various claims of error.ĭefendant claims that he was prejudiced by "lengthy, repetitive and undue" impeachment of witnesses favorable to the defense, namely defendant's wife and his 10-year-old stepson D. 2 while defendant's wife was at work away from home. The other four arose out of sexual activities at the family home in the afternoon of April 30, 1969, fn. Suffice it to say that two counts related to an episode in defendant's car on or about January 1, 1969. 1 There is no need to enumerate the various counts or to describe the evidence in detail. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.Ī jury found defendant guilty of 6 sexual offenses against his 12-year-old stepdaughter S. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Howard J. Horowitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. J., with Stephens and Aiso, JJ., concurring.)Įdward J. JAMES VIRGIL BROWN, Defendant and Appellant
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |