 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Calhoun11/2/2004
ees the scene of an accident where a death has occurred and they are not caught immediately, it is hard if not impossible to later prove that they were DUI. This [enhancement] will create an added deterrence to keep people from fleeing accidents where a death may have occurred." (Sen. Com. on Crim. Proc., analysis of Assem. Bill No.1985 (1995- 1996 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 1, 1996, p. 5.)
Accordingly, legislative history supports an inference that legislators intended section 20001, subdivision (c)'s provisions to apply to direct perpetrators of the underlying offense and not to those persons who merely aid and abet the perpetrators of that offense.
Analogous case law supports Calhoun's assertion that section 20001, subdivision (c) should be interpreted to apply only to direct perpetrators of an underlying offense and not to those persons who merely aid and abet the perpetrator of that offense. In People v. Walker (1976) 18 Cal.3d 232, 133 Cal.Rptr. 520, 555 P.2d 306, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether former Penal Code section 12022.5's enhancement for firearm use applied only to personal users of firearms or also to those who aided and abetted the firearm user. (Walker, at pp. 235-236, 241-242, 133 Cal.Rptr. 520, 555 P.2d 306.) At that time, Penal Code section 12022.5 provided: " 'Any person who uses a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of a robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, murder, assault with intent to commit murder, rape, burglary, or kidnapping, upon conviction of such crime, shall, in addition to the punishment prescribed for the crime of which he has been convicted, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of not less than five years....' " (Walker, at p. 236, fn. 1, 133 Cal.Rptr. 520, 555 P.2d 306, italics added.) Walker stated:
"Generally, if a statute is intended to impose a derivative liability on some person other than the actor, there must be some legislative direction that it is to be applied to persons who do not themselves commit the proscribed act. Such a direction is found in [Penal Code] section 31 which fixes responsibility on an aider and abettor for a crime personally committed by a confederate. *1043 But the statute which defines aiders and abettors as principals in the commission of a criminal offense does not also purport to impose additional derivative punishment grounded on an accomplice's personal **545 conduct, as those statutes which provide for such increased punishment ' "do not define a crime or offense but relate to the penalty to be imposed under certain circumstances." ' [Citations.] Hence the rules which make an accused derivatively liable for a crime which he does not personally commit, do not at the same time impose a derivatively increased punishment by reason of the manner in which a confederate commits the crime." (18 Cal.3d at pp. 241-242, 133 Cal.Rptr. 520, 555 P.2d 306, italics added.)
The court also cited legislative history and the general rule that statutory ambiguities be resolved in a criminal defendant's favor and concluded former Penal Code section 12022.5's enhancement applied only to those who personally use a firearm in the commission of a qualifying offense. (Walker, at pp. 235-236, 241-244, 133 Cal.Rptr. 520, 555 P.2d 306.)
In People v. Piper (1986) 42 Cal.3d 471, 229 Cal.Rptr. 125, 722 P.2d 899, the court addressed the similar issue of whether former Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8)'s language (i.e., "any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm") applied to defendants who did not personally use a firearm. (Piper, at pp. 475-478, 229 Cal.Rptr. 125, 722 P.2d 899.) Piper described Walker's reasoning: "Because former [Penal Code] section 12022.5 contained no explicit suggestion that derivative
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|