 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Calhoun11/2/2004
ction 20001, subdivision (c) does not apply to persons who do not personally or directly commit an underlying offense. Rather, that statute's enhancement applies only to direct perpetrators of an underlying offense. Had the Legislature intended that the provisions of section 20001, subdivision (c) apply to aiders and abettors of an underlying offense, it could have expressly so provided. (Cf. Pen.Code, § 12022, subdivision (a)(1) ["This additional term shall apply to any person who is a principal in the commission of a felony or attempted felony if one or more of the principals is armed with a firearm, whether or not the person is personally armed with a firearm."].)
*1045 The People argue that had the Legislature intended section 20001, subdivision (c) to apply only to persons who directly commit an underlying offense, it could have so expressly provided. However, we infer from the absence of language expressly providing that section 20001, subdivision (c) applies to aiders and abettors that the Legislature intended this statute to apply only to persons who directly commit an underlying offense. Other courts have rejected similar arguments by the People. In People v. Rener, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th 258, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 392, the court stated:
"[The People argue] the Legislature's failure to insert the word 'personally' as it has done when amending other sections means it did not intend to limit liability to direct personal conduct. However, the obverse argument is at least as strong--i.e., the Legislature's failure to insert the word 'personally' means the Legislature believes its use of the words 'any person' sufficiently communicates its intent to impose only direct liability, especially given the number of cases which state these words imply direct liability and not vicarious liability. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 267, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 392.)
We are not persuaded the absence of express language in section 20001, subdivision (c) restricting its application to only persons who directly commit the underlying offense shows that enhancement necessarily applies to aiders and abettors as well.
**547 The People also cite as support for their position our opinion in People v. Wood (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 862, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 115, which involved section 20001, subdivision (a) and not subdivision (c). Section 20001, subdivisions (a) and (b) define as an offense, and not an enhancement, a driver's failure to immediately stop his or her vehicle "involved in an accident" resulting in injury to any person and failure to then take certain actions, including rendering reasonable assistance to any injured person. [FN8] In Wood, we noted the gravamen of a section 20001, subdivision (a) offense is not the initial injury of a victim, but leaving the scene without presenting *1046 identification or rendering assistance. (Wood, at p. 866, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 115.) That offense could apply to drivers who are merely "involved," but not otherwise responsible for, an accident. (§ 20001, subd. (a).) That standard of criminal liability is broader than section 20001, subdivision (c)'s enhancement if the driver flees "after committing" an underlying offense. Because Wood involved a different statute, different statutory language, and an offense rather than an enhancement, we conclude it is inapposite to this case and does not provide support for the People's position. Furthermore, we conclude section 20001, subdivision (a)'s language (i.e., "involved in an accident") does not provide us with assistance in interpreting section 20001, subdivision (c)'s language (i.e., "flees the scene of the crime after committing a violation").
FN8. Originally enacted in 1959, section 20001, subdivision (a) now provides: "The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting
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.
|
|