People v. Steel

California Court of Appeal Jun 19, 1939Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Section 505b of the California Vehicle Code, which defines reckless driving as driving in a manner indicating a willful or wanton disregard for safety, is constitutional. The term 'indicate' refers to the conclusion reached by a court or jury based on the evidence, rather than the subjective perception of a bystander.

Issues

Is section 505b of the Vehicle Code unconstitutionally vague?
Does the word 'indicate' in the statute render it void for uncertainty?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“From the foregoing we are of the opinion that the statute here under consideration is constitutional and not void.”

“The word "indicate" in the statute does not mean what a by-stander may think of the manner in which a defendant drives, but the indication goes clearly to what the court or jury may think and the conclusion therefrom.”

35 Cal.App.2d Supp. 748 (1939) THE PEOPLE, Appellant,

CHARLES LOUIS STEEL, Respondent.

California Court of Appeals.

June 19, 1939. James B. Abbey, District Attorney, and Duane J. Carnes, Deputy District Attorney, for Appellant.

D. L. Ault, City Attorney (San Diego), and Morey S. Levenson and William H. Macomber, Deputies City Attorney, as Amici Curiae,on Behalf of Appellant.

John W. McInnis for Respondent.

Thompson, J.

Defendant was charged in a criminal complaint with a violation of section 505b of the Vehicle Code; the second count of the complaint charged a violation of section 560b of the Vehicle Code which was dismissed by the People in furtherance of justice prior to trial. The first count (violation of section 505b) was dismissed on motion of defendant prior to trial; the ground specified in the motion was that said section was unconstitutional. In granting the motion for dismissal the trial court relied on a written decision rendered by the Municipal Court of the City of San Diego en bancon the 20th day of April, 1939. The sole question presented by this appeal is the constitutionality [35 Cal.App.2d Supp. 750] of section 505b of the Vehicle Code of the State of California, which, in part, provides as follows:

"Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in such a manner as to indicate either a wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. ..."

By its decision the municipal court reviewed the legislative history of the statute here under consideration. We hardly find this necessary in that the question to be decided is as to the wording of the now existing statute.

[1] The main contention is as to the definition of the word "indicate" and its applicability to the section. We find in Webster's New International Dictionary, 1933, edition:

"INDICATE. (L. indicatusp. p. of indicare,to indicate; In-in (Dicare to proclaim; akin to dicere to say. See DICTION; cf. INDICT, INDITE.)"

"1. To point out or to; to direct to a knowledge of; as, to indicatethe way; to be an index, sign, or token of; to betoken, as the height of the mercury in the thermometer indicates the temperature."

"2. To state or sketch briefly; to intimate or show indirectly in the course of a statement, discussion or the like as there is time only to indicatethe method to be pursued."

People v. Steel

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief