Case ID: cal_97/html/0249-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harrison, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20935.
    Department One.
    January 23, 1893.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES BENOIT, Appellant.
    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.
    
      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.
    
      Eugene Daney, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General W. H. H. Hart, for Respondent.
   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.