People v. Bowlin

HOUSER, P. J.

Following defendant’s conviction by the trial court, sitting without a jury, on' each of two charges, to wit, those which are commonly known as “drunk driving” and “hit-and-run”, the court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, but granted his subsequent application for probation ; whereupon defendant appealed from the order by which his motion for a new trial was denied.

Appellant presents neither argument nor authority with relation to his conviction on the charge of ‘ ‘ drunk driving”, but confines his efforts on this appeal to the sole point that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial. In that regard, his first contention is that the statute under the terms of which he was convicted on the “hit-and-run” charge is unconstitutional, in that it purports to deprive defendant of his liberty “without due process of law”; and consequently, that it is violative of section 13 of article I of the state Constitution.

In support of such contention, appellant directs attention to the fact that nowhere in the statute (sec. 480, Vehicle Code), does it appear that before one may legally be convicted of the offense, it must affirmatively appear that the defendant had knowledge of the fact that the automobile which he was driving had collided with another automobile and that by reason thereof someone either was or might be in need of assistance. But for many years last past, it has

[399]

been consistently ruled by the appellate tribunals of this state that notwithstanding the absence of express words in the statute, “the element of knowledge of the fact of the collision is necessarily to be implied from the requirements of the act” (syllabus,

People

v.

Fodera,

33 Cal. App. 8 [164 Pac. 22];

People

v.

Graves,

74 Cal. App. 415 [240 Pac. 1019]); from which it follows that appellant’s contention in that regard cannot be successfully maintained.