California Placer County Drunken Driving Double Punishment Imminent Peril Felony Alcoholic Beverage
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE BUREN WREN, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
April 14, 1969
Defendant, while driving his automobile upon a public highway, veered across the center line and collided with another automobile driven by Lieutenant Colonel James Willett causing injuries to be suffered by the driver and the passenger. The evidence at the trial established that defendant was intoxicated; his speech was incoherent and unintelligible, and a blood sample taken from defendant showed a .23 percent alcohol content. A partially filled bottle containing bourbon whiskey was lying on the right front floor board of defendant's auto with the bottle cap off. Defendant admitted two prior felony convictions. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of section 23101 of the Vehicle Code and of a violation of section 23123 of the Vehicle Code. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.
Issues:
Discussion:
This court held that the acts made punishable which defendant committed, i.e., felony drunk driving and driving with an open container of alcoholic beverage, are two separate and distinct criminal acts. Defendant's punishment for both crimes does not conflict with Penal Code section 654. This court held that defendant was fully conscious and in possession of his mental faculties at the time of the blood-alcohol test and that defendant did not object to the removal of the blood sample. Assuming that defendant did object as he so testified, no force or violence was used. The doctor, on voir dire, stated that defendant did not object to the test, which was administered in a medically acceptable manner. Section 13353 complements rather than supersedes section 23101, and that the enactment of the implied consent law in no way affected the admissibility of blood alcohol tests under established case law."
This court held that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on the general principles of law which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case, whether such instructions are requested or not. Furthermore, the instruction given by the court adequately covers defendant's theory of the accident. The jury did not believe defendant's testimony and properly so in view of defendant's condition, the physical evidence left by the Willetts' car and the fact that defendant was impeached by his admission of two prior felonies. Thus, even assuming that a specific instruction should have been given on imminent peril, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and therefore such an alleged error would not have been prejudicial to defendant.
Conclusion:
This court affirmed defendant's convictions for felony drunk driving and keeping open container with alcoholic beverage in vehicle on a highway
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
April 14, 1969
Defendant, while driving his automobile upon a public highway, veered across the center line and collided with another automobile driven by Lieutenant Colonel James Willett causing injuries to be suffered by the driver and the passenger. The evidence at the trial established that defendant was intoxicated; his speech was incoherent and unintelligible, and a blood sample taken from defendant showed a .23 percent alcohol content. A partially filled bottle containing bourbon whiskey was lying on the right front floor board of defendant's auto with the bottle cap off. Defendant admitted two prior felony convictions. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of section 23101 of the Vehicle Code and of a violation of section 23123 of the Vehicle Code. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.
Issues:
- Whether the punishment and sentence imposed on the defendant violates section 654 of the Penal Code?
- Whether the nonconsensual withdrawal of a blood sample from the defendant deprived him of certain statutory and constitutional rights?
- Whether the trial court's instructions were erroneous?
Discussion:
This court held that the acts made punishable which defendant committed, i.e., felony drunk driving and driving with an open container of alcoholic beverage, are two separate and distinct criminal acts. Defendant's punishment for both crimes does not conflict with Penal Code section 654. This court held that defendant was fully conscious and in possession of his mental faculties at the time of the blood-alcohol test and that defendant did not object to the removal of the blood sample. Assuming that defendant did object as he so testified, no force or violence was used. The doctor, on voir dire, stated that defendant did not object to the test, which was administered in a medically acceptable manner. Section 13353 complements rather than supersedes section 23101, and that the enactment of the implied consent law in no way affected the admissibility of blood alcohol tests under established case law."
This court held that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on the general principles of law which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case, whether such instructions are requested or not. Furthermore, the instruction given by the court adequately covers defendant's theory of the accident. The jury did not believe defendant's testimony and properly so in view of defendant's condition, the physical evidence left by the Willetts' car and the fact that defendant was impeached by his admission of two prior felonies. Thus, even assuming that a specific instruction should have been given on imminent peril, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and therefore such an alleged error would not have been prejudicial to defendant.
Conclusion:
This court affirmed defendant's convictions for felony drunk driving and keeping open container with alcoholic beverage in vehicle on a highway
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Source...