People v. Kuhn, Cr. 1049
| Decision Date | 07 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1049 |
| Citation | 139 Cal.App.2d 109,292 P.2d 964 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur Vernon KUHN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Sankary, Sankary & Weathers, Bruce Weathers, San Diego, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant and appellant was convicted by the court, sitting without a jury, of the crime of violating Vehicle Code section 480 (). A motion for new trial was denied. The appeal is based on the question of the fairness of the trial, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and the claim that the findings were contrary to law.
About 11:45 p.m. on April 23rd, one O'Rourke, a pedestrian 6 ft. 4 in. tall and 64 years of age, dressed in a light gray jacket and light blue trousers, was injured while walking northerly along the western asphalt shoulder of Highway 101, being a six-lane 'rock coat' highway differing in color from the shoulder and unilluminated by any artificial light, at a point one-fourth of a mile north of the business district of Del Mar. The zone speed limit was 55 miles per hour and there were no sidewalks along the roadway. O'Rourke was struck by a 1950 Ford vehicle driven by defendant. Before the accident the Ford was observed by a driver following in the same southerly direction on Highway 101 about one mile north of Del Mar. He testified the Ford car was then being driven 'somewhat erratically', crossing into the various lanes at about 45 miles per hour, and that after it rounded a curve just before the accident it pulled over to the outside westerly lane of traffic and hit a man walking in a northerly direction on the west shoulder. He testified he could see all this from the headlights of the Ford car in front of him; that about that time the Ford 'veered to the right' out of the normal lane of traffic onto the asphalt shoulder and then veered back into the west lane of traffic and the pedestrian was turning a somersault about the level of the top of the Ford; that the Ford proceeded about one-fourth mile farther on to the first intersection in Del Mar and stopped; that he drove up to the Ford car, pointed back to the injured man, and then moved across to the gas station and told the attendant of the accident; that about that time the Ford started forward and continued on south without returning to the place of the accident; that the attendant and others followed the Ford and took its license number; and that he returned to the injured man lying in the road. This Ford was subsequently stopped by the officer in San Diego and defendant was driving it. There was one girl friend in the front seat with defendant and a boy and girl in the back seat. The driver was questioned as to where he had been and if he had hit any object on the road while driving from Los Angeles. He said: 'Yes--near Del Mar'; that he thought it was a guard rail or post, and the reason he knew it happened was because he felt the 'front--it felt like the spring broke'; that he stopped the car, looked at the front and said he noticed a scratch in his right front fender that he had not seen before, but that he saw nothing unusual so they got in the car and went on.
The police officer testified he saw a few beer cans in the car and thought the party had been drinking, but defendant passed the sobriety test and he smelled no alcohol on his breath; and that when defendant was stopped he was going at a normal rate of speed. Matching paint color taken from the right front fender of the Ford was found on the injured man's trousers. 'Dimples' or dents in the metal, and fabric burns were located on the right front fender and there was a slight fabric burn up on the right front of the hood, as indicated by photographs in evidence.
Defendant testified that the four of them were going to Tijuana. He said his Ford was scraped by a driver near Huntington Beach that evening and caused the marks indicated; that at Del Mar he felt a bump or jar and stopped at the intersection, got out, looked at the right front spring; and that a man then pulled up and pointed at him, but he thought nothing of it and then proceeded on at a slow speed and was subsequently stopped by the officers.
Other occupants of defendant's car testified the Ford struck something but they thought it was a chuck hole and that they had broken a spring. They admitted drinking some of the beer, but testified defendant drank none.
It is the claim of the defendant that there was not sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that defendant had knowledge of the fact that he had struck and injured any person. It is more probable that the impact was not a light one; that not only did the right front fender and hood strike the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ryan
...(1940) 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778; People v. Wolf (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 735, 740, 144 Cal.Rptr. 344; People v. Kuhn (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 109, 112-113, 292 P.2d 964; People v. Henry, (1937) 23 Cal.App.2d 155, 159-160, 72 P.2d In the case at bench, the personal injury inflicted upon Pen......
-
State v. Parish
...641, 66 P.2d 206; People v. Henry, 23 Cal. App.2d 155, 72 P.2d 915; People v. Dallas, 42 Cal.App.2d 596, 109 P.2d 409; People v. Kuhn, 139 Cal.App.2d 109, 292 P.2d 964. In People v. Fodera, supra, it is stated [33 Cal.App. 8, 164 P. '* * * our reading of the section in question convinces us......
-
People v. Holford
...194 Cal.App.2d 527, 534, 15 Cal.Rptr. 366; People v. Blankenship (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 173, 177, 340 P.2d 34; People v. Kuhn (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 109, 112, 292 P.2d 964; People v. Rallo (1931) 119 Cal.App. 393, 398 et seq., 6 P.2d 516; see Garabedian v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 124,......
-
People v. Garcia
...his duty to stop and give information. (59 Cal.2d at pp. 125, 127, 28 Cal.Rptr. 318, 378 P.2d 590; see also, People v. Kuhn (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 109, 112, 292 P.2d 964.) This requirement makes sense, in light of the fact the State cannot give "notice" to a driver that he has just been in a......