People v. Lachman

California Court of Appeal Mar 13, 1972 No. Crim. 19966Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statutory presumption in Vehicle Code section 23126, which presumes a person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor if their blood alcohol level is 0.10 percent or higher, is constitutional and does not violate due process.

Issues

Whether the statutory presumption of intoxication based on blood alcohol levels violates the presumption of innocence or due process.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for felony drunk driving.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The presumption in Vehicle Code section 23126, subdivision (a)(3), is not based on speculation but is founded on the long-recognized and scientifically established relationship between blood alcohol level and degree of intoxication.”

“It can be said with substantial assurance that a person with 0.10 per cent or more alcohol in his blood is more likely than not under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Robert Lacbman appeals a judgment of, conviction for felony drunk driving. (Veh. Code, § 23101.)

Shortly after midnight on 25 December 1969 Lachman was drag racing in a 1969 Road Runner at 75 to 95 miles per hour on Sunset Boulevard in Pacific Palisades. Ahead of him Christopher Marvin was driving a van on Sunset at 25 to 35 miles per hour. As Marvin started to change lanes Lachman’s car collided with his van, as a consequence of which Laura Harvey, a passenger in the van, suffered severe injuries.

According to Los Angeles Police Officer Mahoe, Lachman had “strong alcohol” on his breath, his speech was slurred, and his eyes were watery. Lachman told Mahoe he was the other party to the accident, and a witness at the scene said Lachman’s car had collided with the van. Mahoe concluded Lachman was under the influence of liquor, arrested him for drunk driving, and secured a sample of his urine. The police chemist who analyzed the sample found a blood alcohol level of .14 percent and concluded that, depending on objective symptoms, Lachman had probably been under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Vehicle Code section 23126 provides in pertinent part: “(a) Upon the trial of any criminal action ... the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time of the test as shown by chemical analysis of his blood, breath, or urine shall give rise to the following presumptions affecting the burden of proof:

“(3) If there was at that time 0.10 per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood, it shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the alleged offense.”

Lachman’s principal contention is that the use of this presumption vio

[1097]

lated “the fundamental and basic rule that defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We find this contention unpersuasive. First, the record does not indicate that the trial court relied on the presumption in convicting Lachman or that the result would have been materially affected had the presumption not been used. (See

People v. Lachman

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief