*1 assignments of error are made Other
appellant. have considered them and merit.
find them to be without Respondent judgment is affirmed.
is entitled to costs on J., and TUCKETT, JJ.,
CROCKETT and GREAVES, Plaintiff
Jerald W. Respondent, Utah, Appellant.
STATE Defendant and
No. 13631.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Nov. *2 trial that
Thereafter, to his on and prior his anticipation the use of charge, in of State, plaintiff insti- by test the the blood validity of challenging tuted this action charged. was he under which the statute provides: It punishable unlawful and (a) It is this section provided (b) in subsection alcohol con- any person with a blood by greater, weight, tent of or .10% drive or be actual within this state. vehicle Upon the issue to the submission of thereof, support trial and briefs court decision that Sec- issued his court unconstitutional, assign- tion 41-6-44.2 was vagueness its that ing reasons of intent, specific or require either a fails intent, to implies an act violate which Atty. Gen., Romney, Bernard Vernon B. point- statute. of the claimed frailties One Asst, Tanner, Dorius, Attys. Earl M. F. his tell when ed out is that a cannot Gen., City, defendant-appel- Lake Salt a blood alcohol is .10 content without lant. test; compared chemical and this is with easily can tell other offenses where one Low, Lyle Hillyard Lo- W. Gordon J. his violating whether he is 'the law. Gunnell, gan, Hillyard Logan, for & ruling a the trial court commented that plaintiff-respondent. person might have such a concentration CROCKETT, alcohol in his blood medical treatment Justice: injection, or and without intent vio- brought declara- W. Greaves Jerald law, by drinking late the rather alco- than tory judgment have 41- action to beverages. holic 6-44.2, U.C.A.1953, quoted (Pocket Supp.) below, driving control- which deals with judicial to the determina which, intoxicated, ling a vehicle while constitutionality tion of the of statutes violating, charged he been de- had with principles to stat relating there are certain clared unconstitutional.1 construction, utory to be taken into consid upon the August duty
Plaintiff was arrested on
rests
Because
eration.
driving
Logan City
a
officer
police
scope
pow
courts to determine the
A test
taken of
government,
ers of all
three branches
arrest,
shortly
they
blood
after his
responsibility
have a
to exer
per
showing
high degree
a blood-alcohol content of .12
a
and restraint
cise
caution
by weight.
cent
first charged
keep
He was
with
themselves within the limitations
judicial
power
while under the
of alco-
influence
in order not
city
infringe
hol
But after
upon
prerogatives
ordinance.
the ex
plea
guilty
legislative
of not
proceedings,
and other
ecutive or the
branches.
that
harmony
case was dismissed
that
it is
policy
with
the well-es
charged
legislative
under the
tablished
enactments
state statute referred to.
rule
included in
41-2-
Also
the attack
offense. The trial court did not
was Sec.
hold
18, U.C.A.1953,
provides
question
unconstitutional;
which
for the revo
section
and that
upon
cation
one’s driver’s license
con
is not involved
stated
including
ditions,
conviction of the
strong presumption
with a
endowed
This
part
of the Motor
validity;
they
be de
and that
should not
Code,
Vehicle
whose
govern
is to
any rea
if there is
clared unconstitutional
the safety of
the use and
of mo
upon
they can be found
sonable basis
tor vehicles.
Inherent
language
its
the constitutional frame
come within
legislative
determination and declara
strick
work;
will not be
and that a statute
tion that the stated
per
blood content of .10
*3
unless it
being unconstitutional
en down as
cent of alcohol
dangerous
makes it
beyond a reasonable
appears
person
to
so
be
operate
to
or be in control of a ve
doubt.2
hicle. This is one of those situations
where from the doing
prohibited
of the
act
against
think the contentions
We
presumed
is
to intend its natural con
validity
and the com
of the
sequences; and it is doing
intentional
court,
an undue
indicate
ments
prohibited
of the act
by law which consti
punish
and
guilt
concern with
factor
tutes the offense.5 To be considered in
operat
controlling or
respect to
ment with
this connection and consistent with the
It is
well
ing a vehicle while
conclusion we have reached is
41-
require no elaboration
enough known to
6-12 of the Motor Vehicle Act which ex
under the influence
pressly states that it is “a misdemeanor for
it involves the
liquor
hazardous that
is so
any person to do any act
forbidden
welfare, and conse
public interest and
.
(Emphasis
act.”
added.)
subject
regulation
quently,
proper
is a
law;3
this is also true
and
and
control
Concerning the charge that the
of motor vehicles.4
vagueness:
void for
pre
sumption
validity
stated,
suppose
danger
hereinabove
gives rise to the rule
others,
that a
it is the
statute will not
and to
one’s self
be declared
against,
unconstitutional for that reason
guard
purpose of this statute
if
any
interpretation
sensible
of its
just
great, however the alcohol
would be
language it
given practical
can be
determining wheth
effect.
got into the
blood.
The requirement is that it must be
it
suffi
purpose,
er
out that
the statute carries
ciently clear and
persons
definite to inform
given any
should not be
tortured or
of ordinary intelligence what
conjectured
hy
their conduct
application
strained
must be to conform its
situations,
requirements
and
pothetical
but should be under
to advise one accused of
fair,
violating it
applied
and
what
stood and
realistic
constitutes the offense with
is
practical
which he
manner to the situation confront
charged.6
ed,
This statute states with suffi
and in the awareness that all
clarity
cient
conciseness the
ele
and
two
law is not stated in one sentence or one
ments necessary to constitute its
paragraph,
violation.
but a statute
be construed
tois.
They
(1)
a blood
applied
alcohol concentration
require
in relation to other
per cent,
of .10
(2)
opera-
concurrent
ments of the law.
(Pocket Supp.).
Ogden City
recognition
1953
Newcomb
As to
See
v.
Pub. Sch.
Teachers, etc.,
503,
941;
this class of crimes
121
where the intent
Utah
243 P.2d
do the
prohibited
Stewart,
198,
act
Utah Mfrs.’ Ass’n
constitutes
v.
82
offense see State
Utah
Twitchell,
above;
v.
4
him for innocent He is participate conduct. therefore does not position complain not in a ab- herein. Walgreen Equalization, Wyo. 193, Am.Jur.2d,
7. See v. State Board of Co. Law, Constitutional Sec.