People v. Frank F.

[385]

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

The juvenile court found that the minor was a person who came within the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that he had violated section 192, subdivision 3 of the Penal Code—vehicular manslaughter. There is no dispute concerning the sufficiency of the evidence which showed that the minor, intoxicated, drove a station wagon which collided with the center divider of a freeway and came to rest in such a way that it blocked more than one lane of traffic. The minor fled the scene. A few minutes later a Corvette driven by one Nersessian hit the station wagon head on. The accident eventually caused Nersessian’s death. Expert testimony established that shortly after the accident the minor’s blood contained .23 percent alcohol.

Issue

The only contention on appeal is that the juvenile court petition should not have proceeded by reference to the vehicular manslaughter statute (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. 3), but should have been based on section 23101 of the Vehicle Code—commonly known as felony drunk driving. What gives some substance to the argument is the fact that since the 1977 amendment to the latter statute (Stats. 1977, ch. 592, § 1), the relevant subdivision mentions death as well as bodily injury.

1

The point made is that the Vehicle Code section in question is a special statute, that vehicular manslaughter is a general statute and that prosecution under the general statute is therefore precluded.

(People

v.

Ruster

(1976) 16 Cal.3d 690, 694 [129 Cal.Rptr. 153, 548 P.2d 353, 80 A.L.R.3d 1269];

People

v.

Gilbert

(1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 479 [82 Cal.Rptr. 724, 462 P.2d 580];

In re Williamson