People v. Madearos

• Decision Date: 16 November 1964
• Docket Number: Cr. 4793
• Citation: 41 Cal.Rptr. 269,230 Cal.App.2d 642
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur Edward MADEAROS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 269

41 Cal.Rptr. 269

230 Cal.App.2d 642

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur Edward MADEAROS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 4793.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Nov. 16, 1964.

Sims Hamilton, Los Angeles, for appellant.

John A. Nejedly, Dist. Atty., County of Contra Costa, Robert L. Boags, and Lindsay M. Mickles, Deputy Dist. Attys., Martinez, Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, and Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

Matthew S. Walker, Dist. Counsel, Bay Area Air Pollution Control Dist., San Francisco, amicus curiae on behalf of the contentions of the respondent.

AGEE, Justice.

Defendant was convicted in municipal court of operating a diesel truck 'in a manner resulting in the escape of excessive smoke,' a violation of section 27153 of the Vehicle Code. The judgment of conviction was reversed by the appellate department of the superior court. That court then certified the cause to us under rule 63 of the California Rules of Court. We accepted the transfer.

The sole issue before us is whether section 27153 is unconstitutional in that, as defendant contends, the term 'excessive smoke' is 'so indefinite, uncertain and vague that it fails to inform a person of ordinary or average intelligence of what acts or omissions it declares to be prohibited and punishable, or fix any standard of guilt.'

The same attack was made in Smith v. Peterson, 131 Cal.App.2d 241, 280 P.2d 522, 49 A.L.R.2d 1194, on the constitutionality of section 27150 (then section 673) of the Vehicle Code. This section provides that every motor vehicle 'shall at all times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise * * *.'

The statute was held to comply with the constitutional requirement of reasonable certainty and understandability. We adopt the followwing statement in Smith v. Peterson.

'It is well settled that a criminal statute which is so indefinite, vague and uncertain that the definition of the crime or standard of conduct cannot be ascertained therefrom, is unconstitutional and void. However, there is a uniformity of opinion among the authorities that a statute will not be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. Nor does the fact that its meaning is difficult to ascertain or susceptible of different interpretations render the statute void. All presumptions and intendments favor the validity of a statute and mere doubt does not afford sufficient reason for a judicial declaration of invalidity. Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly,...