 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byrd v. Municipal Court for San Francisco Judicial District11/24/1981
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
Civ. Nos. 52121, 53005
1981.CA.40122 ; 178 Cal. Rptr. 480; 125 Cal. App. 3d 1054
November 24, 1981
ROBERT L. BYRD ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND RESPONDENT. WILLIAM JOHN CHIKAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, V. THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT; THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Writ Nos. 98, 108, Thomas J. Dandurand, Judge.
J. Farragher Campbell, William B. Dunn and Joseph D. O'Sullivan for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William D. Stein, Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Granucci and Herbert F. Wilkinson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Opinion by Scott, Acting P. J., with Barry-Deal, J., and Anello J., concurring.
Scott
The appellants in these consolidated cases appeal from orders of the superior court denying their petitions for writs of prohibition and/or mandate.
Appellants Robert Byrd, Howard Koch, George Shelby and William Chikan were each charged by separate complaint with driving "under the influence of intoxicating liquor and under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs" in violation of Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a). Each demurred to the complaint, and the demurrers were overruled by the municipal court. Seeking to restrain further prosecution, appellants petitioned for writs of prohibition and/or mandate in the superior court; the petitions were denied and these consolidated appeals followed.
The sole question presented is whether the complaints against appellants give constitutionally adequate notice of the allegations against which they will be required to defend. Relying on Sallas v. Municipal Court (1978) 86 Cal. App. 3d 737 [150 Cal. Rptr. 543], appellants argue that the use of the word "drugs" in the complaint does not afford them adequate notice; they urge that unless the prosecution specifically indicates at a minimum the class of drugs allegedly consumed in combination with liquor, they have not been provided with proper notice and cannot prepare a defense.
A demurrer may be sustained when an accusatory pleading ". . . does not substantially conform to the provisions of Sections 950 and 952
In Sallas, numerous individuals were accused by separate complaints of misdemeanor violations of Health and Safety Code section 11550, in that each did ". . . unlawfully and willfully use and was under the influence of a controlled substance." The controlled substance was otherwise undescribed. As in this case, each accused demurred, in part on the ground that the complaint failed to give sufficient notice of the offense charged. The demurrers were overruled, and petitions for writs of prohibition seeking to enjoin further prosecution were denied.
Reversing, the Sallas court noted th
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|