Byrd v. Municipal Court

Decision Date24 November 1981
Citation178 Cal.Rptr. 480,125 Cal.App.3d 1054
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesRobert L. BYRD, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. William John CHIKAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Civ. 52121, Civ. 53005.

J. Farragher Campbell, San Francisco, for Robert L. Byrd.

William B. Dunn, San Francisco, for Howard E. Koch.

Joseph D. O'Sullivan, San Francisco, for George Shelby.

Joseph D. O'Sullivan, San Francisco, for William John Chikan.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., William D. Stein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, Herbert F. Wilkinson, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for real party in interest and respondent.

SCOTT, Acting Presiding Justice.

The appellants in these consolidated cases appeal from orders of the superior court denying their petitions for writs of prohibition and/or mandate.

Appellants Robert Byrd, Howard Koch, George Shelby and William Chikan were each charged by separate complaint with driving "under the influence of intoxicating liquor and under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs" in violation of Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a). Each demurred to the complaint, and the demurrers were overruled by the municipal court. Seeking to restrain further prosecution, appellants petitioned for writs of prohibition and/or mandate in the superior court; the petitions were denied and these consolidated appeals followed.

The sole question presented is whether the complaints against appellants give constitutionally adequate notice of the allegations against which they will be required to defend. Relying on Sallas v. Municipal Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 737, 150 Cal.Rptr. 543, appellants argue that the use of the word "drugs" in the complaint does not afford them adequate notice; they urge that unless the prosecution specifically indicates at a minimum the class of drugs allegedly consumed in combination with liquor, they have not been provided with proper notice and cannot prepare a defense.

A demurrer may be sustained when an accusatory pleading "... does not substantially conform to the provisions of Sections 950 and 952 ...." (Pen.Code, § 1004.) Section 952 provides in relevant part: "In charging an offense, each count shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains in substance, a statement that the accused has committed some public offense therein specified. Such statement ... may be in the words of the enactment describing the offense ...." However, due process requires that an accused be reasonably advised of the charges against him so that he may have an opportunity to prepare and present his defense, and so that he can avoid being taken by surprise at trial. (In re Hess (1955) 45 Cal.2d 171, 175, 288 P.2d 5; Sallas v. Municipal Court, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at p. 743, 150 Cal.Rptr. 543.) A literal compliance with Penal Code section 952 may be insufficient to withstand a demurrer, where the language of the statute fails to give the accused constitutionally adequate notice of the offense with which he is charged. (People v. Jordan (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 362, 369, 97 Cal.Rptr. 570.)

In Sallas, numerous individuals were accused by separate complaints of misdemeanor violations of Health and Safety Code section 11550, in that each did "... unlawfully and willfully use and was under the influence of a controlled substance." The controlled substance was otherwise undescribed. As in this case, each accused demurred, in part on the ground that the complaint failed to give sufficient notice of the offense charged. The demurrers were overruled, and petitions for writs of prohibition seeking to enjoin further prosecution were denied.

Reversing, the Sallas court noted that the "controlled substances" within the proscriptions of section 11550 included about 120 drugs or substances, together with their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, among them "narcotics and nonnarcotics, hallucinogens and nonhallucinogens, stimulants and depressants." The observable symptoms of an individual under the influence of one of these substances vary widely and obviously depend on which was used. Because the accuseds were charged with use or being under the influence as opposed to possession, the substances themselves would not ordinarily be available for use as evidence. The prosecution would be obliged to rely principally, if not entirely, on the evidence of the accuseds' appearance, conduct, and symptoms.

Given the lack of specificity in the complaints either as to the controlled substance or the particular symptoms at issue, each accused had to be prepared to defend against proof that he had used or been under the influence of any one of these 120-plus substances. The Sallas court concluded that such complaints denied due process: the accuseds were not reasonably advised of the charges against them, given a fair opportunity to prepare a defense, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Burg v. Municipal Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 1983
    ...of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties." (Italics deleted.) (Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1058, 178 Cal.Rptr. 480.) As explained above, prosecution under this section was facilitated by former section 23126, which established ......
  • People v. McNeal
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 9 Julio 2009
    ...like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties. [Citations.]" (Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1058, 178 Cal.Rptr. 480, italics omitted.) In 1969 the Legislature enacted a statutory presumption that a driver was under the influ......
  • People v. Weathington
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 11 Junio 1991
    ...for misbehavior. (Cf. Gilbert v. Municipal Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 723, 726-727, 140 Cal.Rptr. 897; Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1058, 178 Cal.Rptr. 480.) The Attorney General asserts that the defense never conceded that appellant was under the influence of alcohol......
  • People v. Canty
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 2004
    ...or mental ability.'" (People v. Enriquez (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 661, 665, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 710, citing Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1058, 178 Cal.Rptr. 480; Gilbert v. Municipal Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 723, 727, 140 Cal.Rptr. By contrast, for a defendant to be guilty ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties. [Citations.]” ( Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1058, italics omitted.) *5 The record shows that Officer Williams was the only person to testify at the preliminary hearing. He testifie......
  • Arraignment and pretrial matters
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...fails to give an accused constitutionally adequate notice of the offense with which he is charged. Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1054. In the present case, the complaint alleges that defendant: “[Violated] section 23153(a) of the California VC, in that the said defendant did......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT