 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniels v. Department of Motor Vehicles3/10/1983
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
L.A. No. 31586
1983.CA.41010 ; 33 Cal. 3d 532; 189 Cal. Rptr. 512; 658 P.2d 1313
March 10, 1983
WILFRED ANTHONY DANIELS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C320963, Jerry Pacht, Judge.
James Gaus for Plaintiff and Appellant.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, and Thomas Scheerer, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion by Broussard, J., expressing the unanimous views of the court. Bird, C. J., Mosk, J., Richardson, J., Kaus, J., Reynoso, J., and Dalsimer, J., concurred.
Broussard
In this appeal we consider whether an accident report filed pursuant to Vehicle Code section 16000 is sufficient without additional evidence to support the suspension of a driver's license in a formal Department of Motor Vehicles (D.M.V.) hearing.
In May 1979, the D.M.V. received what is known as an SR 1 report completed and signed by Carlita Lynn Dorham. The report described an accident
that allegedly occurred April 25, 1979, involving a vehicle owned and operated by Dorham and another vehicle owned and operated by licensee Daniels.
On October 10, 1979, the D.M.V. issued an order of suspension of Daniels' driver's license for his failure to file an accident report and proof of financial responsibility. Daniels requested a formal hearing pursuant to section 16075. At the hearing, the referee produced and received into evidence the SR 1 report. The attorney for Daniels objected to the report on the grounds that it contained hearsay and that it had not been authenticated. The objection was overruled on the theory that the report was admissible under section 14108, which provides that at formal hearings ". . . the department shall consider its official records and may receive sworn testimony . . . ."
Daniels was called as a witness by the referee, but on advice of counsel, refused to respond when asked whether he was involved in the accident. He asserted that testifying would tend to incriminate him in the commission of a crime.
The referee found that Daniels had been in an accident involving property damage in excess of $350, and that he did not have insurance or other type of financial responsibility covering the accident in effect at the time that it occurred.
Following the recommendation of the referee, the D.M.V. issued its order of suspension January 28, 1980. Daniels' petition for writ of mandate was denied by the superior court. The Court of Appeal reversed.
The events underlying the companion case of Himelspach v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1983) post, at page 542 [189 Cal. Rptr. 518, 658 P.2d 1319], are procedurally similar except that Himelspach did not personally attend the formal hearing. However, she was represented by counsel who, coincidentally, is the same attorney who represents Daniels. The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's denial of a petition for writ of mandate. We granted a hearing to resolve the conflicting decisions of the Courts of Appeal.
The California Financial Responsibility Law (Veh. Code, § 16000 et seq.) requires drivers of motor vehicles to be self-insured, to ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|