TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Cox

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROBERT B. COX, Appellant

People v. Cox, 231 P.2d 91 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 15, 1951
Docket
No. Crim. 4593
Judges
Shinn
Citations
231 P.2d 91104 Cal. App. 2d 2181951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1602
Cited by 11

Opinion — Shinn

SHINN, P. J.

Defendant, Robert B. Cox, appeals from judgments of conviction of three counts of violations of section 288 of the Penal Code committed upon the person of his daughter, a child of 12 years. Trial 'by jury was waived.

Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgments; that the testimony of the prosecuting witness was contradictory, inconsistent, inherently improbable and uncorroborated.

We have examined the record and find the evidence more than ample to sustain the judgments. We do not deem *219 it necessary to repeat here the facts giving rise to the charges brought against the defendant. The alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the child’s testimony consisted of minor deviations in the stories told at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. It is elementary that the credibility of the witness and the reconciliation of any discrepancies in the evidence are questions to be determined by the trier of the. facts and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support it. The alleged contradictory statements here were not such as to render the child’s story inherently improbable or unworthy of belief, and we find support in the evidence for the determination of the trial court. Defendant’s contention that error was committed because the prosecuting witness’ story was uncorroborated also is without merit. There was some corroboration, although it is not necessary in a case of this type.

(People v. Carlson, 73 Cal.App.2d 933 [ 167 P.2d 812 ].) The record shows that the trial judge was fully conscious of his grave responsibility and that he weighed the evidence understanding^ and with great care.

The judgments are affirmed.

Wood (Parker), J., and Vallée, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1957: 21960: 21961: 11962: 11963: 11964: 11967: 21968: 119572026peak 1957 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Scholl225 Cal. App. 2d 558 (1964)
  2. People v. Butler249 Cal. App. 2d 799 (1967)
  3. State v. Ross449 P.2d 369 (Idaho 1968)
  4. People v. Wilder312 P.2d 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  5. People v. Horton191 Cal. App. 2d 592 (1961)
  6. People v. Pike183 Cal. App. 2d 729 (1960)

Most recent

  1. State v. Ross449 P.2d 369 (Idaho 1968)
  2. People v. Morales254 Cal. App. 2d 194 (1967)
  3. People v. Butler249 Cal. App. 2d 799 (1967)
  4. People v. Scholl225 Cal. App. 2d 558 (1964)
  5. People v. Pilgrim215 Cal. App. 2d 374 (1963)
  6. People v. Brooks202 Cal. App. 2d 427 (1962)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Carlson, 167 P.2d 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list