Drunken Driving
California Placer County Drunken Driving Double Punishment Imminent Peril Felony Alcoholic Beverage Open Container Lawyers Attorney Author: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE BUREN WREN, Defendant and Appellant Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate...
California Placer County Drunken Driving Double Punishment Imminent Peril Felony Alcoholic Beverage Open Container Lawyers Attorney
Author: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE BUREN WREN, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
April 14, 1969
Defendant, while driving his automobile upon a public highway, veered across the center line and collided with another automobile driven by Lieutenant Colonel James Willett causing injuries to be suffered by the driver and the passenger. The evidence at the trial established that defendant was intoxicated; his speech was incoherent and unintelligible, and a blood sample taken from defendant showed a .23 percent alcohol content. A partially filled bottle containing bourbon whiskey was lying on the right front floor board of defendant's auto with the bottle cap off. Defendant admitted two prior felony convictions. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of section 23101 of the Vehicle Code and of a violation of section 23123 of the Vehicle Code. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.
Issues:
- Whether the punishment and sentence imposed on the defendant violates section 654 of the Penal Code?
- Whether the nonconsensual withdrawal of a blood sample from the defendant deprived him of certain statutory and constitutional rights?
- Whether the trial court's instructions were erroneous?
Discussion:
This court held that the acts made punishable which defendant committed, i.e., felony drunk driving and driving with an open container of alcoholic beverage, are two separate and distinct criminal acts. Defendant's punishment for both crimes does not conflict with Penal Code section 654. This court held that defendant was fully conscious and in possession of his mental faculties at the time of the blood-alcohol test and that defendant did not object to the removal of the blood sample. Assuming that defendant did object as he so testified, no force or violence was used. The doctor, on voir dire, stated that defendant did not object to the test, which was administered in a medically acceptable manner. Section 13353 complements rather than supersedes section 23101, and that the enactment of the implied consent law in no way affected the admissibility of blood alcohol tests under established case law."
This court held that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on the general principles of law which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case, whether such instructions are requested or not. Furthermore, the instruction given by the court adequately covers defendant's theory of the accident. The jury did not believe defendant's testimony and properly so in view of defendant's condition, the physical evidence left by the Willetts' car and the fact that defendant was impeached by his admission of two prior felonies. Thus, even assuming that a specific instruction should have been given on imminent peril, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and therefore such an alleged error would not have been prejudicial to defendant.
Conclusion:
This court affirmed defendant's convictions for felony drunk driving and keeping open container with alcoholic beverage in vehicle on a highway
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
I agree -that “drunken driving” is a SERIOUS crime. But the VAST marjority of those drivers- you would NOT be able to pick out of a crowd of your friends & relatives !!! So you need to be CAREFULL and JUST- when you decide how BIG the BOOK will be- that You THROW at them, when they get behind the wheel after having had One Too Many..! Now after saying THAT, and you’re having nominated ME as “Judge, Jury & Chief Executioner”; I would have a (traffic stopped) impaired Driver- pay a $500. fine & lose their Drivers Licence for 3 months- for the FIRST Offense. For the Second Offense- the fine would go to $2,000 & their Licence would be “down” for a Year. If the Driver got caught Impaired a THIRD time, the fine would go to $5,000, the Licence would be gone for 5 Years (& subject to REVIEW- even THEN), and there’d be a mandatory 6 month jail Sentence. And if anyone was seriously injured or killed because the Driver was drunk, they’d have to pay ALL Medical & Funeral Bills, ATTEND that deceased person’s funeral, AND- pay whichever cost they owed- depending on the # of Offenses they’d already HAD… … .
Just tell her straight up and anyone will be able to access that info through the “Freedom of Information Act”.
Drunken driving?
I got caught for drunken driving. My blood alcohol was twice the permissible limit. My license has been confiscated.
How do I break the news to my parents, especially mom, since I’m living at home now ?
Will this info be dug up by gossip columnists when I become a celeb ?
drunken driving….?
so let’s assume that YOU (yes you) have the power to write up a punishment for all drunken drivers, what would that punishment be? and why?
punishment can be any (you dont have to take the whole cruel and unusual into consideration LOL)
well the reason i ask this is that drunken drivers are horrible, not only do they put themselves at risk, they harm other innocents!!!! and deserve more severe punishment!!!!
Sueing the United States Government for drunken driving?
Has anyone sued the united states government, because a military member who was drunk was involved in a car accident, which killed a passenger in the car?
If they cant enforce the already in place law of drunken driving, should they really be adding the texting law?
In Wisconsin we have 7th and 8th time repeat offenders for DUI. Now they want to make laws making texting illegal? They cant even enforce the laws already in place, how do they think making more laws will make driving safer? Wouldn’t using the laws already out improve the safety of driving more then adding laws….
he just finished sa and na he will be attending aa in a few weeks
should bryan the dog go to jail with humans for drunken driving?
should alcoholic bryan the dog be made to go to A.A?
Some people never learn. The justice system can’t make them.