People v. Berner

California Court of Appeal Sep 8, 1938 No. Crim. 3133Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that section 506 of the Vehicle Code prohibits driving by a person addicted to narcotic drugs, regardless of whether the driver is currently impaired, and that the statute is a constitutional exercise of police power.

Issues

Whether section 506 of the Vehicle Code requires proof of impairment to sustain a conviction for driving while addicted to narcotics.
Whether section 506 of the Vehicle Code is an unconstitutional exercise of police power.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That defendant was addicted to the use of narcotic drugs within the meaning of section 506 of the Vehicle Code there can be no question. Whether he was at the moment of his arrest under the “influence” of such drug is therefore unimportant.”

“It was likewise within the province of the legislature to declare it to be an offense “for any person who is addicted to the use ... of narcotic drugs to drive a vehicle upon any highway”.”

“Appellant’s further contention that section 506 of the Vehicle Code is unconstitutional for the reason that it is an unlawful exercise of police power, and deprives appellant of the equal protection of the law, is without merit.”

DORAN, J.

Defendant, who was- charged in an information with the violation of section 506 of the Vehicle Code, a felony, was adjudged guilty thereof by the court and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. The appeal herein is from the judgment, and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Section 506 of the Vehicle Code reads as follows:

“Driving When Addicted to or Under Influence of Narcotic Drugs.

It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use, or under the influence, of narcotic drugs to drive a vehicle upon any highway.. Any person convicted under this section shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison for not less than- one year nor more than five years or in the county jail for not less than ninety days nor more than one year or by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment. ’ ’

The evidence reveals that on March 17, 1938, defendant, while driving an automobile on a public highway in the city of Los Angeles, was arrested by a police officer who knew him. Some

9½

grains of morphine and a hypodermic device were found in defendant’s possession.

The city jail physician, who is also examining physician for the city and state narcotic department, testified, in substance, that he examined defendant at the central jail in Los Angeles on March 17th, and found that defendant was under the influence of and addicted to the use of a habit-forming drug, but that defendant’s appearance showed he had his faculties, and he was able to respond normally to all the questions; that it was his impression that if defendant were conducting a business or occupation he would be able to handle it; that the examination further revealed that defendant was afflicted with very severe bronchial asthma. He also stated that defendant appeared to be capable of driving an automobile, and further testified that defendant told him that “ . . . for the past four years (a doctor) has been prescribing for him the amount of 42 grains of morphine

[394]

People v. Berner

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief