People v. Forbes
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DIBIASO, Acting P. J.
We hold in part that the word “stranger” in Penal Code section 1203.066 has no technical meaning peculiar to the law and therefore that the trial court did not err in refusing an instruction which purported to define the word.
Statement of the Case
On February 23, 1994, an information was filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court charging appellant Hilton Forbes 1 with commission of a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, 2 § 288, subd. (a), count I) and penetration with a foreign object of the genital opening of a child under the age of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. RowlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. MaloneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. IbarraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- People v. McCleodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996