People v. Ammons

Opinion

FILES, P. J. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of two counts of “hit and run” driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001.1

The People’s evidence supports the following statement of facts:

Afe about 5:20 p.m., April 20, 1969, Bradley and Christine Melvin were riding a motorcycle at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour on a highway near Ventura when defendant, driving an automobile in the opposite direction, made a sudden left turn in front of them. The motorcycle swerved to avoid a collision and struck a metal pole at the side of the road. Both of the riders were thrown to the ground. Defendant stopped, left his vehicle, and walked to within 10 feet of the Melvins, both of whom were on the ground. Christine was moaning. Defendant looked at them, then returned to his automobile and drove away. He did not identify himself to anyone and did not offer or render aid to the injured. Christine had in fact sustained serious injuries which required hospitalization. Bradley Melvin had “the wind knocked out” and sustained a muscle strain and some scratches.

Another motorist who saw the accident recorded defendant’s license number and identified him at the trial.

[686]Defendant testified at the trial that he had not been involved in the accident. He claimed he had loaned his car to a friend that day.

Defendant contends here, as he did at the trial, that section 20001 is unconstitutional because his compliance would have required him to incriminate himself. He points out that the evidence shows he was in danger of prosecution for making an illegal left turn (Veh. Code, § 21801), driving while under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23101 or 23102) and driving after his operator’s license had been revoked (Veh. Code, § 14601). He relies upon Byers v. Justice Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1039 [80 Cal.Rptr. 553, 458 P.2d 465],2 which was decided after the accident but prior to the trial of this case.

Prehminarily we note the contention of the Attorney General that defendant “lacks standing” to challenge the constitutionality of section 20001 because he denied he was the driver of the car involved in the accident, citing People v. Limon (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 575 [60 Cal.Rptr. 448]. The only support we find for this argument is in headnote [2] appearing on pages 575-576 of the report of that case. The entire text of the discussion of the constitutional issue in the Limón opinion is as follows (at p. 579): “Appellant appears to contend that the Vehicle Code section is unconstitutional in requiring him to give his name as driver, because if he was driving under the influence of liquor he would thereby incriminate himself. The validity of the statute was established long ago. (People v. Diller, 24 Cal. App. 799 [142 P. 797].) Besides, appellant did not at any time admit that he was the driver. That fact was established by independent evidence.”