Burg v. Municipal Court for Santa Clara County Judicial District of Santa Clara County12/22/1983
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
S.F. No. 24622
1983.CA.40035 ; 198 Cal. Rptr. 145; 673 P.2d 732; 35 Cal. 3d 257
December 22, 1983
RICHARD JOSEPH BURG, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. THE PEOPLE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND RESPONDENT
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 507133, Bruce F. Allen, Judge.
Perry E. Olsen and Thomas P. House for Plaintiff and Appellant.
W. Scott Quinlan, Quinlan, Kershaw, Fanucchi & Hoffman, Owen P. Rafferty, Philip A. Rafferty, Linda Lee DeMetrick and Campbell & DeMetrick as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, 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 Mosk, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court. Bird, C. J., Kaus, J., Broussard, J., Reynoso, J., Grodin, J., and Weinstein, J., concurred.
Mosk
Richard Joseph Burg, hereafter defendant, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of prohibition. He contends that
Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b), fails to give constitutionally adequate notice of the conduct it prohibits, and that the municipal court erred in overruling his demurrer to that effect. We conclude that section 23152, subdivision (b), is constitutional, and therefore affirm the judgment.
Defendant was arrested at 2:25 in the morning of March 27, 1982, for violation of section 23152, subdivision (a) (driving while under the influence of alcohol). A chemical test administered 50 minutes later revealed a blood-alcohol content of 0.23 percent. He was charged with violating section 23152, subdivision (b), i.e., driving a vehicle while having 0.10 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in one's body. The complaint also alleged a prior conviction of former section 23102, subdivision (a) (driving while under the influence of alcohol).
Defendant demurred on the ground that section 23152, subdivision (b), gives constitutionally inadequate notice of the conduct proscribed. The municipal court overruled his demurrer, and defendant sought a writ of prohibition in the superior court. The petition was denied on the merits, and this appeal followed.
I. Background
A. The Problem
Eighty years ago an editorialist complained, "Inebriates and moderate drinkers are the most incapable of all persons to drive motor wagons. The general palsy and diminished power of control of both the reason and the senses are certain to invite disaster in every attempt to guide such wagons." (26 Q.J. Inebriety (1904) 308, 309.) In the ensuing decades motor vehicles have become faster, heavier, and ubiquitous, with proportionately tragic consequences to the victims of drinking drivers. Nearly half of the traffic deaths in California between 1976-1980 involved drinking drivers. (Cal. Highway Patrol, 1980 Ann. Rep., Fatal & Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, p. 2, tables 1a, 1b, and p. 58, tables 6a, 6b.) Nearly one-quarter of all traffic accidents resulting in injury involved the use of alcohol.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|