LE SECTICIDE
L'ANTI - SCIENTOLOGIE antisectes.net

Viol en sciento et intéressante définition de leur électromètre bidon: boule de cristal ou table tournante 

(Traduction partielle en bleu, pour les parties les plus intéressantes)

 People v. Wilson , 20 Cal.App.3d 507
[Crim. No. 19568. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District,
Division Two. October 13, 1971.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES BLAZURE WILSON, Defendant and
Appellant

(Opinion by Compton, J., with Herndon, Acting P. J., and Fleming, J.,
concurring.)

(Opinion de 3 juges d'appel)

COUNSEL

Donald F. Roeschke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney
General, and Mark A. Levin, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


OPINION
COMPTON, J.

Defendant was charged in an amended information with three counts of violating section 288a of the Penal Code (Oral copulation) [20 Cal.App.3d 509] and one count of violating section 261, subdivision 1 of the Penal Code (statutory rape). The information alleged that defendant had suffered a previous conviction of violating section 476a of the Penal Code (issuing checks without sufficient
funds) and had served a term of imprisonment in the state prison.

(résumé: le défendant avait déjà été condamné pour chèque en bois et mis en prison]

Defendant admitted the prior conviction and the substantive charges were tried
to a jury. The result was a conviction on all counts. The jury recommended a
state prison sentence for the rape.

This appeal from the judgment of conviction sets forth four contentions of
error, none of which is meritorious.

Factual Background

Les fondements de fait:

Les principaux témoins du procès sont Joan, 14 ans et Mary, 19 ans, toutes deux belles-filles du défendant.
Nous avons estimé inutile de raconter en grand détail les témoignages ayant mené le défendant à l'inculpation.

En usant des termes les plus "favorables", voici ce que disait le jugement:

Le 25 mars 70, le défendant plaçait sa bouche sur les parties privées de Joan, 14 ans. Le 2 avril, il avait des relations sexuelles avec Joan. Le 4 avril, il plaçait de nouveau sa bouche sur les parties de Joan, en présence de sa soeur. Il faisait de même sur Mary en présence de Joan, tout ceci se produisant au domicile.

Les circonstances extrémement bizarres accompagnant la victimisation de ces jeunes filles sont les suivantes:

La famille pratique une pseudo-religion nommé "scientologie" et le défendant, grâce à cette pratique, a persuadé ces jeunes filles qu'elels avaient un "problème de sexe" pouvant être résolu par lui. Le diagnostic des problèmes des victimes et de leur thérapie avait été atteints lors de séances "d'audition", lesquelles sont semble-t'il des éléments d'un rituel de "l'église de scientologie". Durant ces séances le défendant se servait d'un appareil connu sous le nom d"e-meter", qui semble selon les dossiers n'être qu'un genre d'outil aux fonctions de table tournante ou de boule de cristal, mais qui, selon les "scientologues" aurait des capacités dépassant les derniers progrès en matière d'ordinateurs. L'incroyable électromètre est supposé pouvoir montrer à "l'auditeur" la présence de choses à auditer, des problèmes émotionnels refoulés, dont le sujet ne connaîtrait souvant pas l'existence.
[20 Cal.App.3d 510]


Les victimes ont donc accédé aux exigences licencieuses du défendant.


Defendant admitted to both Joan and his wife, the mother of the girls, that he
had engaged in sexual relations with Mary.

Sufficiency of the Evidence of Oral Copulation

Defendant contends that the evidence fails to support the finding that defendant
"copulated" the privates of the victims and cites People v. Angier, 44
Cal.App.2d 417 , 419 [112 P.2d 659]. fn. 1 Here the victims testified that
defendant kissed them in the vaginal area with his tongue.

The language of Angier has been seized upon by defendants charged with such
offenses in numerous cases. That decision, however, enjoys little, if any,
viability. [1] It was repudiated by its author in People v. Harris, 108
Cal.App.2d 84 [238 P.2d 158], where it was held that the statute is violated by
placing one's mouth on the genital organ of another.

Thus, to borrow a phrase, the Angier case has become a "derelict on the seas of
jurisprudence." It is often discussed but never followed. It is simply not the
law. The evidence here was clearly sufficient.

Corroboration of the Victims

The trial court instructed the jury that each girl was, as a matter of law, an
accomplice as to the act of oral copulation performed upon her. The court
further correctly instructed the jury on the definition of an accomplice and the
requisites of corroboration.

[2] Defendant correctly points out that one accomplice may not corroborate
another. [3] However, as to an act performed on one girl, whether the other girl
was an accomplice or a non-participating observer was a question of fact which
under proper instructions was resolved by the jury against the defendant.
(People v. Blanco, 170 Cal.App.2d 758 [339 P.2d 906].)

The testimony of the two victims coupled with the defendant's admission to the
mother furnished adequate corroboration and supports the jury's findings.

Standards for Fixing Punishment

Defendant next contends that the statute authorizing the jury to fix punishment
in statutory rape is unconstitutional in that it provides the jury [20
Cal.App.3d 511] with no standards but instead commits the matter to the
unfettered discretion of the jury.

This argument is completely answered by the United States Supreme Court in
McGautha v. California, 398 U.S. 936 [26 L.Ed.2d 267, 90 S.Ct. 1846]. There the
court was dealing with the absolute discretion of the jury to fix the penalty
for first degree murder at either life or death, a decision of considerably
greater magnitude than the one involved here. [4] The Supreme Court found no
constitutional prohibition to such procedure. It appears that the greater would
include the lesser.

Determination of the Prior

[5a] Defendant admitted the allegation of the prior. He now suggests that the
procedure in connection with pleas of guilty required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709], should be applied to defendant's
admitting a prior conviction. This contention is answered by People v. Franco, 4
Cal.App.3d 535 [84 Cal.Rptr. 513]. [6] Allegations of prior offenses are not
charges of specific crimes. They serve only an ancillary function in aggravating
minimum punishment and are dependent in their operation upon a conviction of the
charged substantive offense. [5b] The defendant suffered no prejudice from the
procedure which was followed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Herndon, Acting P. J., and Fleming, J., concurred.

­ FN 1. In Angier the court discussed the definition of "copulation" and
concluded that "a mere kiss or lick of the private organ ... is not a
copulation."

Retour sous index correspondant à ce type de texte : comiques

Retour Webpage