 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Quarles2/2/1954
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
Crim. No. 2902
1954.CA.41103 ; 266 P.2d 68; 123 Cal. App. 2d 1
February 2, 1954
THE PEOPLE, RESPONDENT,
v.
DOYLE LEE QUARLES, APPELLANT
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. Donald K. Quayle, Judge.
Marvin J. Colangelo, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, and Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.
Nourse, P. J. Dooling, J., and Kaufman, J. concurred.
Nourse
Defendant, Doyle Lee Quarles, was tried without a jury and convicted on two counts of an information charging him with violation of section 192, Penal Code (involuntary manslaughter) and of section 501, of the Vehicle Code (committing an unlawful or negligent act while driving under the influence of liquor). He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. However the record does not show any motion for a new trial was made or any order denying one. Probation was denied.
The accident occurred on September 5, 1952, at approximately 11:15 p. m. on the Eastshore Highway in Emeryville, California. Defendant's car, a 1941 Buick, was proceeding north on a divided highway when it crossed into the southbound lane, sideswiped a southbound car and then hit a Pontiac, overturning it. An infant riding in the Pontiac died as a result of the injuries and other passengers were hurt.
Two men who had witnessed the accident stopped immediately, going first to the overturned Pontiac to give what assistance they could but observing shortly thereafter that defendant was lying on the roadway to the left of the Buick. A highway patrol officer, arriving soon after the accident happened, found the appellant lying in the roadway at the left of the Buick, his feet practically under the edge of the
car, his head away from it. No one else was seen in or near the Buick. Witnesses testified that immediately prior to the accident they had observed an unidentified man driving the Buick, had seen no one else in the car but that as the convertible top was up they did not have a clear view of the rear seat.
Defendant and the passengers in the Pontiac were taken to a hospital. There defendant was asked by Officer Sabo if he would permit a blood sample to be taken for analysis of alcoholic content. He agreed. The doctor asked and defendant again agreed. The blood taken contained .286 per cent alcohol; .150 per cent is sufficient for intoxication.
Counsel for appellant, who at appellant's request was appointed by this court to represent him on this appeal, sets forth the following arguments:
I. The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and the judgment.
II. The court made two incorrect rulings, each of which constitutes reversible error.
I. Evidence insufficient to support the verdict. Appellant claims there was no proof that he was the driver of the car, pointing out as evidence to the contrary that he was found outside the car on a cushion with all the doors of the automobile closed, that if he had fallen from the driver's seat he would have been on the bare ground or roadway and the car
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|