Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Norton
Citations: 297 P.2d 439; 141 Cal. App. 2d 790; 1956 Cal. App. LEXIS 1917Docket: Crim. 1062
Court: California Court of Appeal; May 23, 1956; California; State Appellate Court
Defendant Charles E. Norton was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288 for committing lewd acts on a 9.5-year-old girl. After the conviction, a sexual psychopath evaluation found him not to be a psychopath. During the hearing for a new trial and probation, defense attorney Gordon E. Von Kalinowski did not object to Judge Hewicker presiding, despite his unfamiliarity with the case. Judge Hewicker denied the motion for a new trial and set the probation report before Judge Turrentine, who had conducted the psychopath hearing, also without objection from the defense. On appeal, Norton argued that the trial judge should have handled the motion for a new trial and sentencing. The court found that, due to the lack of objection from the defendant or his attorney, it could not presume prejudice, as the superior court is a single entity divided into departments. The court also noted that while it is preferable for the trial judge to hear a new trial motion, this is not a statutory requirement and the proceedings were free from prejudicial error. Additionally, Norton contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The victim testified that after inappropriate advances, Norton fondled her in a secluded area and instructed her not to inform her father. Physical evidence, including red paint on her panties, was corroborated by other witnesses who confirmed the absence of both the victim and defendant during the alleged incident. The defendant acknowledged participating in a game of 'Hide and Seek' with the victims but denied the charged offenses. The evidence presented supports the charges against him. He also alleged prosecutorial misconduct during jury arguments, claiming the prosecutor's statements were prejudicial, although there was no reporter's transcript available for review. The prosecutor countered defense claims that witnesses were coached and that their testimony was fabricated. Despite potential errors in the prosecutor's statements, the defendant did not object during the trial, which precludes him from raising this issue on appeal. Additionally, the defendant argued that the court should have provided further instructions on circumstantial evidence regarding criminal knowledge and intent. The court had already given general instructions on direct and circumstantial evidence and clarified that intent to gratify sexual desires was a necessary element of the offense. The conviction was primarily based on direct testimony from the victim, with circumstantial evidence serving as supplementary support. Lastly, the defendant contested the admissibility of the child's complaint made shortly after the incident, arguing it was delayed and involuntary. However, the complaint was made within 24 hours of the incident and was deemed to be made at the first opportunity the child had to speak to someone trusted. The court found no merit in these claims, leading to the affirmation of the judgment and the denial of a new trial. The defendant's petition for a Supreme Court hearing was also denied.