People v. Mancuso
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. William P. Lawlor, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtKerrigan, J.
The defendant was convicted upon a charge of rape upon the person of a child under the age of consent. The appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
It is true, as asserted by the defendant, that in prosecutions for rape, where a single act is charged and a series of acts of sexual intercourse are proved, the prosecution must select the particular act relied upon. (People v. Castro, 133 Cal. 11, [65 Pac. 13].) But in the present case a specific act was alleged in the information, and that act with a great many others was proved. No objection was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- People v. Von PerhacsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- People v. OverackerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. BeggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- People v. WillmurthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- People v. KristyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Grossetti v. SweaseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- People v. ButtuliaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.