In Re Henley
Before: Burnett
Synopsis
Criminal Law — Inebriety—Affidavit for Arrest—Sufficiency— Habeas Corpus.—An affidavit for arrest, under section 2185c of the Political Code, enacted in 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 396), which states that the person to be arrested “is so far addicted to the intemperate use of stimulants as to have lost the power of self- , control; that by reason thereof said person is a fit subject for commitment to a state hospital for the care and treatment of the insane, and ought to be confined therein as an inebriate, under the provisions of section 2185c of the Political Code,” corresponds substantially with the language of the statute, and cannot be held so deficient in showing that he belongs to a class contemplated thereby as to entitle him to be discharged on habeas corpus. f
Id.—Loss of Self-control—Pact Inferred from Pacts Observed—. Matter of Knowledge or Observation.—The loss of the power of self-control and the intemperate use of stimulants are facts, though the knowledge of them may be the result of inference from other known facts; but they are so intimately connected with the observation of the appearance or conduct of the person as to be properly placed within the category of knowledge or observation, , rather than of opinion. They do not require the exercise of judgment so much as the faculty of perception.
Id.—Opinion as to “Inebriety” Deduced from Pacts Observed— Ultimate Fact—Exception as to “Matter of Opinion.”—If the statement in the affidavit .of arrest that the accused is an “inebriate” is to be regarded as the statement of an opinion, it is merely the statement of an ultimate fact, deduced from facts observed as to the habits of the accused as to “intoxication,” and if the conclusion as to the ultimate fact involves matter of opinion, it falls within an exception to the general rule as to “matter of opinion” as thoroughly established as the rule itself.
Id.—Bight of Admission to Bail Pending Examination—Showing of Danger to Safety Bequired.—Unless there is an affirmative showing of danger to the safety of one or to society in allowing the accused to be admitted to bail, he is entitled, under section 6 of article I of the constitution, to be admitted to bail until a hearing and examination can be had.
BURNETT, J.
Petitioner, held on a warrant of arrest by the sheriff of Sacramento county, claims that said warrant was issued without authority of law, and is therefore void. The proceeding against petitioner was instituted under the statute passed by the legislature of 1911 providing for the “arrest, hearing and commitment of inebriates and drug habitues.” (Stats. 1911, p. 396.) The affidavit upon which the warrant herein was predicated set forth: “That there is now in the said county in the city or town of Sacramento a person named William Henley who is so far addicted to the intemperate use of stimulants as to have lost the power of self-control. That by reason thereof said person is a fit subject for commitment to a state hospital for the- care and treatment of the insane and ought to be confined therein as an inebriate under the provisions of section 2185c of the Political Code of the state of California.” Said section, as far as necessary to quote, provides that “Whenever it appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of a magistrate of a county, or city and county, that a person is so far addicted to the intemperate use of narcotics or stimulants as to have lost the power of self-control or is subject to dipsomania or inebriety, he must issue and deliver to some peace officer for service a warrant-,” etc. It is thus to be seen that the affidavit corresponds substantially with
[3]
the language of the statute. It describes the defendant so that he appears as a suitable subject for the operation of this beneficent law. No attack is made upon the validity of the statute itself. The competency of the legislature to enact it is not brought into question, but the contention is made that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant, for the reason that sufficient facts are not alleged in said affidavit from which the magistrate could legally infer that petitioner belongs to a class contemplated by said law. We think, however, it should not be held that said affidavit is so deficient in that respect as to entitle petitioner to be discharged on
habeas corpus.
The affiant expressed more than a mere opinion. The loss of the power of self-control and the intemperate use of stimulants are facts, although, of course, the knowledge of them may be the result of inference from other facts. But these concepts are so intimately connected with the observation of the appearance or of the conduct of a person as to be properly placed within the category of knowledge or observation rather than of opinion. They do not require the exercise of judgment so much as of the faculty of perception. But if we regard the allegations of the affidavit as the expression of an opinion that petitioner is an inebriate, the case falls within the principle of
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)