 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byers v. Justice Court for Ukiah Judicial District of Mendocino County9/16/1969
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN BANK
S.F. No. 22634.
1969.CA.40396 ; 80 Cal. Rptr. 553; 71 Cal. 2d 1039; 458 P.2d 465
September 16, 1969
JONATHAN TODD BYERS, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
THE JUSTICE COURT FOR THE UKIAH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND APPELLANT.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. Robert L. Winslow, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Louise H. Renne, Robert R. Granucci and Derald E. Granberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
John W. Poulos and Rawles, Nelson, Golden, Poulos & Hinkle for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Peters
PETERS, J. The People appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County granting a writ of prohibition restraining the Justice Court for the Ukiah Judicial District from proceeding further against plaintiff Jonathan Todd Byers on count two of a criminal complaint filed in the justice court against him. Count one of the complaint charged Byers with improper and unsafe passing in violation of section 21750 of the Vehicle Code, and count two charged him with violating one of the "hit-and-run" provisions in the Vehicle Code, section 20002, subdivision (a), by leaving the scene of an automobile accident resulting in property damage
without furnishing his identity and certain other information to the owner or person in charge of the damaged property.
Byers demurred to count two on the ground that section 20002, subdivision (a), was unconstitutional as applied because it violated his privilege against self-incrimination. It was stipulated by counsel that the two alleged Vehicle Code violations arose out of the same occurrence, i.e., that the alleged improper passing caused the accident from which Byers assertedly departed without providing statutorily required information. The justice court overruled the demurrer.
Upon application by Byers the superior court granted a writ of prohibition restraining further proceedings on count two on the ground that section 20002, subdivision (a), could not be applied against Byers under the circumstances of the case without infringing his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination - a protection against state as well as federal governmental action (Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 [12 L.Ed.2d 653, 84 S.Ct. 1489]) - ordinarily provides a defense to prosecution for failure to supply statutorily required information in cases where the defendant has reasonable ground to apprehend a substantial danger that such information, if supplied, would be available to prosecuting authorities and could be used as a significant "'link in a chain'" of evidence tending to establish his guilt of some criminal offense. (Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 48 [19 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 697]; Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 66-67 [19 L.Ed.2d 906, 911, 88 S.Ct. 709]; Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 95-97, 101 [19 L.Ed.2d 923, 931-932, 934, 88 S.Ct. 722]; Albertson v.
SACB, 382 U.S.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|