Olson v. State
Decision Date | 24 February 1930 |
Docket Number | Criminal 705 |
Citation | 285 P. 282,36 Ariz. 294 |
Parties | WILLIAM N. OLSON, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Joseph S. Jenckes, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instruction to the lower court to dismiss.
Messrs Cox & Janson, for Appellant.
Mr George T. Wilson, County Attorney, Mr. K. Berry Peterson Attorney General, and Mr. Riney B. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
The appellant herein, William N. Olson, was accused by information of "the crime of leaving the scene of an accident, a felony," and upon conviction given a sentence of not less than one year nor more than one year and one month in the state prison. The information charges that on December 19th, 1928, he "well knowing an injury had been caused to one Marie Wells, which said injury was caused by carelessness of him, the said William N. Olson, or by accident, in a collision between an automobile then and there being driven by the said William N. Olson and the said Marie Wells at or near the intersection of Sixteenth Street and Indian School Road, in Maricopa County, State of Arizona, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously leave the place of said injury or accident without stopping and giving his name, residence, including street number, and operator's license to the injured party, or to a police officer or reporting said injury or accident to the nearest police station or peace officer."
A general demurrer to this information was interposed and the order overruling it is the first error assigned, the ground therefor being that the information is susceptible of two interpretations and consequently so indefinite that it does not inform the appellant of the charge against him. Whether this be true or not it is unnecessary to decide because an examination of the statute for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the information discloses that it was drawn under paragraph 5134, subdivision 5, Revised Statutes of 1913, and that this provision had been replaced by chapter 2 of the Session Laws of the Fourth Special Session of the Eighth Legislature more than a year prior to the date on which the crime was alleged to have been committed. This later act, which was passed in 1927, is commonly referred to as the Highway Code and it is apparent from reading it that it was the purpose of the legislature in passing it to cover fully and completely the subject of highway legislation. It repeals specifically chapter 7, and all of chapter 8 except four paragraphs, 5134 to 5137, Title 50, Revised Statutes of 1913, and acts amendatory thereof, the former being entitled "State Highways" and the latter "Use of Public Highways by Motor Vehicles," and a comparison of its provisions with those of chapter 8 not included within the direct repeal reveals conclusively that they have superseded the latter and hence repealed them by implication. For instance, the first of these four paragraphs, 5134, contains six subdivisions which deal principally with the matter of the speed of motor vehicles under various circumstances, the giving of warnings, operating a car in an intoxicated condition, and reporting injuries knowingly caused by carelessness or accident, and an examination of the new act discloses that it has dealt with all these subjects just as fully if not more so than they. And the same may be said of the matters treated in the other three paragraphs. That such is true of the two provisions with which we are here concerned, namely, subdivision 5 of paragraph 5134, upon which the information is based, and the one replacing it, section 27, chapter 5, of the new Code, is apparent without any extended study of their purport and language. The first is in these words:
The second reads as follows:
It will be observed that the first sentence of subdivision five makes the operating of a car by one intoxicated a misdemeanor, and a search of the new Code discloses that section 1, chapter 6 thereof, does the same thing, though it includes others -- those driving cars while under the influence of narcotic drugs or the habitual users...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Apache County, 1
...recognized that an amendment of a statute, covering the same subject matter, implicitly repeals the earlier version. Olson v. State, 36 Ariz. 294, 296-97, 285 P. 282 (1930). However, when a law that repeals a former law is found to be unconstitutional, and therefore void, the operative repe......
-
State v. Parish
...that his car was involved in an accident is a defense available to the accused driver who fails to stop and render aid. Olson v. State, 36 Ariz. 294, 285 P. 282; Behrens v. State, 140 Neb. 671, 1 N.W.2d 289; Scott v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 100, 233 S.W. 1097, 16 A.L.R. In State v. Johnson, 54 ......
-
Salt Lake City v. Kusse
... ... ordinance is identical with R. S. U. 1933, Sec. 57-7-14, ... except that the statute applies to "any highway within ... this state"; provides for imprisonment "in the ... county or municipal jail"; and the punishment provided ... for a second offense is imprisonment "for not ... Such legislation supplants all previous legislation ... on the subject unless specially saved by the provisions of ... the act itself. Olson v. State , 36 Ariz ... 294, 285 P. 282. That the regulations of the state act apply ... and control within cities is not only manifest from the ... ...
-
State v. Hoffman
...court will review the record to determine if there has been 'fundamental error'. State v. Romo, 66 Ariz. 174, 185 P.2d 757; Olson v. State, 36 Ariz. 294, 285 P. 282; Smith v. State, 23 Ariz. 469, 204 P. 1032; Martin v. State, 22 Ariz. 275, 196 P. 673, petition for rehearing denied 22 Ariz. ......