P. v. Bimson
Steven Bimson appeals from a judgment convicting him of numerous offenses arising from his molestation of three boys. He raises three contentions of instructional error, contending the trial court erred by (1) failing to define the term "complaining witness" in CALCRIM No. 1190 concerning the noncorroboration requirement for sexual offense victim testimony; (2) instructing the jury that unlawful oral copulation is a general intent crime; and (3) refusing to instruct that defense character evidence can alone create a reasonable doubt of guilt. We reject his first two contentions, but agree with his third contention. However, we find the instructional error harmless.
Bimson also asserts the trial court should have stayed some of his sentences under Penal Code section 654.[1] The Attorney General concedes this issue. We agree and modify the sentence accordingly. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Bimson