Smith v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 21 December 1960
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: James Edward SMITH, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 25072.

Page 1

10 Cal.Rptr. 1

187 Cal.App.2d 609

James Edward SMITH, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 25072.

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

Dec. 21, 1960.

Hearing Denied Feb. 15, 1961.

Irmas & Rutter, Beverly Hills, for petitioner.

William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., of Los Angeles County, Harry Wood, and Harry B. Sondheim, Deputy Dist. Attys., for real party in interest.

NOURSE, Justice pro tem.

Petitioner is the defendant in an action by which he is charged by the district attorney, through an information, with the violation of section 4234, Business and Professions Code, in that he did furnish to one Linda Phillips (hereinafter called 'Phillips'), a minor of the age of 20 years, certain dangerous drugs. His motion made pursuant to section 995 of the Penal Code to set aside the information, having been denied, he here pursuant to section 995a of the Penal Code, seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent court from proceeding under that information.

The sole question presented is: Was Phillips a minor within the meaning of section 4234 of the Business and Professions Code? The facts are undisputed. The uncontradicted testimony given before the committing magistrate was that Phillips was of the age of 20 years but at the time of the commission of the alleged offense she was a married woman.

Section 4234 of the Business and Professions Code as amended in 1955 reads in part as follows: 'Every person who violates any provision of this article * * * by unlawfully furnishing any hypnotic or dangerous drug to a minor is guilty of a felony.'

It is petitioner's contention that Phillips being a married woman at the time the drugs were furnished to her, she was an adult within the meaning of section 25 of the Civil Code. Section 25 of the Civil Code, so far as pertinent here, reads as follows: 'Minors are all persons under 21 years of age; provided * * *, that any person who has reached the age of 18 years and * * * contracts a lawful marriage, * * * shall * * * upon contracting such marriage, * * * be of the age of majority and be deemed an adult person for the purpose of entering into any engagement or transaction respecting property * * *.' (Emphasis added.)

Prior to 1927, only females under the age of 18 years were minors. In 1927, section 25 was amended so as to make all persons under 21 years of age minors except that married females over the age of 18 were deemed to be an adult for the stated purpose, among others, of entering into any engagement or transaction respecting property or her estate. ¹

Under section 25 of the Civil Code as amended, all persons under 21 years are minors but as to certain of them, those who are married and over the age of 18 years, the disabilities attached to minority are removed for the purposes defined by the statute. Petitioner's contention cannot, therefore, be sustained unless the transaction through which Phillips was furnished the drugs in question is an engagement or transaction respecting property within the meaning of section 25 of the Civil Code.

As all persons deal with a minor at their peril and as upon marriage a child ceases to be subject to parental control (§ 204, Civil Code) and establishes a family of his or her own, it was undoubtedly the intent of the Legislature to permit minors upon marriage, to enter into and be bound by lawful engagements or transactions respecting property in order that they be not hindered in the conduct of their affairs by the refusal of other persons to enter into engagements with them because of the fear...