People v. Oviedo
| Decision Date | 28 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 907 |
| Citation | 235 P.2d 612,106 Cal.App.2d 690 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. OVIEDO. |
J. David Hennigan, Public Defender, Riverside, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Dan Kaufmann, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant and appellant was charged with and convicted by the court of violating sec. 11170.5, Health and Safety Code, in that he did wilfully and unlawfully, in connection with the prescribing and furnishing of a narcotic, give a false name and false address. Probation was granted. Defendant appealed.
The agreed facts appear in a portion of the preliminary hearing and the facts stipulated to at the trial. They are that defendant's true name is Claude Oviedo; that he has lived at 401 South Berkeley Street, San Bernardino, for the past six or eight years; that sometime in 1949, he was told by certain persons that he could see a Dr. Reid, at Perris, state that he had a headache, and that by doing so he could obtain some narcotic, 'dilaudid'; that 'some of these fellows' gave him some of these narcotic tablets; that he melted them and injected some of the substance in his arm with a hypodermic needle; that on June 30, 1950, he went to see Dr. Reid for the express purpose of obtaining these narcotics; that defendant informed the doctor that his name was Frank Queyer and that he lived at the Santa Fe Section House, Romoland, California; that the defendant complained of certain physical pains in his head that justified the doctor in issuing to him a prescription for a quantity of dilaudid narcotic tablets; that the doctor furnished such a prescription; that the defendant appeared at the pharmacy, turned over the prescription to the pharmacist, and obtained the quantity of dilaudid narcotic tablets called for in the prescription; that the name 'Frank Queyer' was a false name in that the defendant had never been known by that name, and that the address given was a false address and that the defendant had never lived at that address nor ever used it as a mailing address. It was then stipulated that when the defendant procured the prescription from the doctor, the doctor would have given the defendant the same prescription if the defendant had given his true and correct name, and his true and correct address. From a reading of the transcript it appears that defendant had previously obtained one or two similar prescriptions under false names; that when he went there on this occasion he went there for the express purpose of obtaining these narcotics; and that he used them by melting them and injecting them into his arm.
The only questions raised on this appeal, as we construe it, are (1) that the legislative history, pertaining to this particular law, impels the conclusion that the section does not apply to persons who receive a prescription for narcotics; (2) that the section is a penal statute and it should be strictly construed; and (3) that to apply the section to defendant would lead to absurd results and therefore it should be construed to exclude the defendant.
Counsel for defendant sets out the origin of sections 11170 and 11170.5 as being Stats. 1937, p. 1950, chap. 687, sec. 1, and concedes that the section, as then written, would be applicable to the defendant in that it prescribes that 'No person shall, in connection with the prescribing * * * or dispensing of any narcotic drug * * * give a false name or address or make any false statement to any person authorized by law to prescribe, * * * or dispense any such drug.' (Italics ours). The argument is that by the enactment of sec. 11170.5, i. e., 'No person shall, in connection with the prescribing, * * * or dispensing of a narcotic, give a false name or false address', the Legislature changed the words of a perfectly understandable section of law creating a prohibition against the use of a false name when applied to those who deal with physicians, etc., and by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Larsen
...and checking a patient's consumption. See generally Commonwealth v. Bernabei, 86 Pa.Super. 550, 555 (1926); People v. Oviedo, 106 Cal.App.2d 690, 235 P.2d 612, 613-14 (1951) (Use of false name to obtain prescription prohibited by Health and Safety Code, notwithstanding the defendant's abili......
-
Cronin v. State, 83-169
...Merritt v. State, 245 Ind. 362, 198 N.E.2d 867. Others of interest are: State v. Lee, 62 Wash.2d 228, 382 P.2d 491; People v. Oviedo, 106 Cal.App.2d 690, 235 P.2d 612; Geurin v. State of Nevada, 73 Nev. 233, 315 P.2d 965; and, State v. Crawford, 251 S.W.2d 76 (Mo.1952). "In State v. Osborn,......
-
People v. Meyer
...may properly be convicted under section 11170.5 for giving a false name and address to the prescribing physician. (People v. Oviedo, 106 Cal.App.2d 690, 235 P.2d 612.) Yet such a 'patient' would not thereby be violating section 11225 because that section only imposes a duty upon one 'who is......
-
State v. St. John, 59653
...Merritt v. State, 245 Ind. 362, 198 N.E.2d 867. Others of interest are: State v. Lee, 62 Wash.2d 228, 382 P.2d 491; People v. Oviedo, 106 Cal.App.2d 690, 235 P.2d 612; Geurin v. State of Nevada, 73 Nev. 233, 315 P.2d 965; and, State v. Crawford, 251 S.W.2d 76 (Mo.1952). In State v. Osborn, ......