TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Benoit

THE PEOPLE v. CHARLES BENOIT

People v. Benoit, 31 P. 1128 (Cal. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1893
Docket
No. 20935
Judges
Harrison
Citations
31 P. 112897 Cal. 2491893 Cal. LEXIS 521
Syllabus
Criminax. Law—Incest—Evidence—Previous Prostitution oe Daughter— Reception oe Earnings by Father. —Upon the trial of a defendant charged with having committed incest with his daughter, it is error for the court to permit the introduction of evidence by the prosecution tending to show that, prior to the commission of the crime charged, the daughter was living as a prostitute with her mother, and was giving to her father the earnings of her shame.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Harrison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Harrison, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted upon a charge of having committed incest with his daughter, a girl of about fifteen years of age, and sentenced to the state prison for a term of ten years. At the trial the district attorney was permitted, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to show by the testimony of the daughter that about two years prior to the commission of the alleged crime she was living as a prostitute with her mother at a certain house in San Diego, and giving to her father the earnings of her shame.

This testimony was entirely irrelevant and immaterial to the determination of the issue before the court, and its admission was manifest error. Its evident effect was to prejudice the defendant before the jury by attempting to show his turpitude of character; but however base his nature may have been, he was not on trial for any offense except that named in the information, and it was as much error for the prosecution to introduce evidence tending to show his bad character, as it would have been to give evidence of other and distinct crimes that he had committed.

The judgment and order are reversed.

Paterson, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1899: 11932: 11960: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Bowles178 Cal. App. 2d 317 (1960)
  2. Isenberg v. Sherman7 P.2d 1006 (Cal. 1932)
  3. Trumpler v. Trumpler55 P. 1008 (Cal. 1899)

Most recent

  1. People v. Bowles178 Cal. App. 2d 317 (1960)
  2. Isenberg v. Sherman7 P.2d 1006 (Cal. 1932)
  3. Trumpler v. Trumpler55 P. 1008 (Cal. 1899)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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