*1 31á
STATE of Plaintiff and TWITCHELL, L. Defendant
Levert Appellant.
No. 8810.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Jan.
WORTHEN, Justiсe. appeals convic from a jury crime of automobile tion 76-30-7.4, violation of U.C.A. homicide in *2 Supplement) (1957 which Pocket 1953 Chapter passed Legislature by the 1957 Utah, of Laws title, act, is follows: including The The Relating Act To Penal “An Code; Providing For Offense Of Through Operatiоn Causing Death Intoxicated A Vehicle While Of Motor Providing Punishment In The And Penitentiary For Period Of State To Ten Years. From One Legislature of “Be it enacted of Utah: 76-30-7.4, Utah Code Anno- “Section 1953, is enacted to read: tated person, influ- “Any intoxicating or narcotic ence оf of drugs, who under the influence or is ren- any drug degree which other safely incapable of a driving ders him an- vehicle, the death of who causes operating or automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle reckless, negligent or careless in a manner, wanton or with a reckless or safety, or shall life human disregard Marsden, Lake Salt Hatch, M.A. S. Glen upon guilty of deemed appellant. City, for punished by impris- shall penitentiary for Gen., Gary onment L. Callister, Atty. E. R. year than one nor of not less period respondent. Gen., Atty. for Theurer, Asst. yeаrs. than more ten A death under prosecutor new statute the section, which one occurs has a choice of charge automo- proximate result of the within accident homicide, involuntary bile felony, day, day and a after the of the manslaughter, misdemeаnor, on identical accident.” facts. The definition involuntary man- slaughter was not amended expressly by Defendant contends that passage of the question unconstitutional in that it vio existing contends that the two statutes against provisions lates the constitutional side side prosecutor allow ;1 con special legislation that it violates against discriminations de- individuals provision against deprivation stitutional prive equal citizens protection law;2 process liberty without due laws. pro further constitutional violates a one '-than slight it contains more There vision because difference between subject clearly ex is not in question and the prohibiting and a statute pressed title the act. the use gun in the of a loaded resulting being, yet death of a human the individual claims the act *3 happens another, who any to kill absent who unlawfully against discriminates those intent, criminal cannot contend driving an automobile by mere chance while classification is unrealistic. drugs intoxicants of under the influence states injure another. He happen fatally to “A” If at intending “B” to kill him shoots driving under the not that the does “B” but “C,” misses hits he cannot only places fel- felony, influence by excuse his act showing that he did not unluckier are ony penalties on those who intend hit to or kill “C.” influence. under than the other drivers by the that this classification He contends far as pres Sо drunken singling out of this legislature, being ent statute unlawfully discriminatory kill is unconstitutional. drivers who drugged concerned, is this court has that all legislature has that the contends also He required that is is that apply the statute being under the status substituted equally to all members class and liquor for criminal drugs or influence long as is there a valid reason as for a clas formerly before one intent by legislature, sification their determin felony. contends He of a also ation of the class will not convicted be disturbed.4 VI, VI, 26. Sec. 3. Article Article Sec. 1. 23. I, Kallas, 7. Sec. 4. State v. 2. Article 97 Utah 94 P.2d aware, there make this crime Neither, is excluded from the old are so far as we legis- wherein any against previously crime prohibition they fell. constitutional admittedly unlaw- two relate death they statutes insofar to lative substitution of an by in intent in- operator under the required criminal ful for status irreconcilable, example, crimi- fluence are prosecution. and we hold felony For pronouncement support legislature, a the last necessary to nal intent is not law, the automobile homicide cohabitation.5 unlаwful prosecutions on pre- under the facts therein argument impressed Nor are we scribed. happen applies only those who to highways, person on the kill another to Involuntary : manslaughter is defined per- that whether although recognize we being “The unlawful killing of а human dies in lives or injured an accident son * * * without malice in the commission many into which chance largely a matter of of an unlawful act not amounting argument could enter; factors same * * felony However, legisla- if the homi- types of regard to the made single fit ture tо act of out the unlawful sees those and it is prohibited by cide driving while being intoxicated as die the victim enough unfortunate special classification, think it is we within homicide in for can be tried legislative prerogative their to do so. degree. In our the result is the same . argumеnt potent Appellant’s most if the had amended the involun- prose that the proposition to the addressed tary manslaughter after adding choice given should cutor felony the following: word felony statute proceed under “Provided, however, that if un- statute under a misdemeanor or under killing lawful human being such may agree that this of facts. We set same from results an automobile and others in defendant deny to tend influence of intoxicat- laws, equal protection of the ing drugs or narcotic he shall be prose may be used identical guilty uрon deemed of a completely integrated two cutions *4 punished shall by impris- be and the other statutes, a misdemeanor one penitentiary in the state encompasses onment for a Automobile felony. period of not than one less nor part of previously a crime, one not newa years.” than 10 to more go the that facts as such Utah 76-30-5, 292, Barlow, 6. U.C.A.1953. Utah 153 P.2d Section v. 5. 647.
Appellant’s contention that the act ment.
In addition he contends that if he did
clearly
subject
sign
contains more than one
not
it he did so under
influence
the
еxpressed
fact
is addressed
drugs
in its title
to the
his
administered
the
during
course of
prohibits
act
causing-
that
death
following
the
treatment
accident. How-
ever,
while
of intoxi
influence
we are of the
that there was
cating
causing
also
death while
but
sufficient evidence оf consent for the court
driving under
narcotic to
influence
allow the exhibit
into
evidence and
drugs
drugs
permit
or under other
degree
jury
to consider it.
incapable
which renders the driver
safe
Conviction affirmed.
operation
vehicle;
whereas
prohibits only
title
dеath
“causing
through
CROCKETT,
J.,C.
concurs.
operation
in
of motor
vehicle
However,
toxicated.”
does not
title
McDONOUGH,
WADE and
JJ., concur
in the result.
have to be an index
to the act. All
matter of
HENRIOD,
(dissenting).
Justice
reasonably
the act
related
title
be
to the
parts
dissent,
that all
аct
be reason
I
believing
the legislation
ques-
ably
appears
tion,
each
It
paves
related
other.
interpreted,
way
for an
placed
from both
title
itself
accused to
jeopardy1
twice in
places penalties upon
represents
the act
the caus
legislation.2
It
hands
operation of a motor
ing
through
of death
prosecutor a
shotgun,
double-barreled
either
posses
operator
is not in
vehicle while
barrel of which could be discharged, follow-
of normal faculties and reflexes.
sion
ed
the other in the discretion of the
prosecutor. Permitting this has
been
argument
Defendant’s last
is addressed
equal protection
to violate the
of a
clauses
in evidence of the
the admission
results
both state and federal constitutions.3
he
taken
blood test which
wаs
contends
As to
him without his consent.
from
Should the lesser offense
pursued,
capable of
or not defendant
prosecutor
allege
need but
negligence.
test,
consenting and did consent to the blood
ignored
Drunkenness could be
as an element
produc-
cоnflicting.
the record
of the offense. Should
charge be
allegedly signed
signed
consent
ed
pursued, both drunkenness
negligence
defendant, although
defendant stated
alleged,,
could be
exactly
signing
could not remember
the docu-
proved.
In the one case the accus-
I,
12, Utah
Cory, 1955,
Sec.
Constitution.
Art.
235,
1.
3.State
204 Or.
282 P.
24,
I,
1054;
Sec.
Pirkey,
Art.
Constitution.
2d
State v.
203 Or.
697,
319 may voluntary maximum intoxi- thought and a not have ed faces a misdemeanor other, cation, may p. at 10 m. h. kill some one after one-year jail In the sentence. years having leaving felony of 10 his doctor’s office and a and maximum after faces a drug facts had administered to him a for some prison. in Although actually or rejects ailment other which but unwit- proved, opinion could main be drive, tingly made him it unsafe for to included any idea that the lesser offense face а 10 would and a maximum of any negli- that greater, concluding years,' requiring any inten- pros- statute not drunk-driving be gent, must homicide —the or voluntary tional self-administration of stat- ecuted homicide under automobile drug. drink or could ute.4 How the fact of drunkenness complaint
be determined bеfore this, opinion’s The main answer to all it mat- to a in such case have filed would seem, represented by purported would clairvoyance, fact would such ter of since analogy to effect that the here statute jury, be one of those determinable punishes is not who unlike one A say that and to automobile "the B, intending shoots to kill but kills C. prosecutions on law comparison logic, my opinion, and offends prescribed” mis- is somewhat facts therein analogy is no anal- might at all. There quoted statement seems leading since suсh shoots, if ogy punished if A he predicated fact of drunkenness on to be C, intending B, to providing kill kills A buts prosecu- being known before somehow Besides, zvas either drugged. drunk tion. parenthetically, crim- gunman had real aspect of this jeopardy Besides the double kill, inal intent whereas an intoxicated to writer that the obvious to this it case seems seldom, ever, driver intends hurt to directly at a class of mis- strikes legislation one save himself. may taken a drink who demeanants The decision in this case class meets the latter of that fact drug, and becausе aor problem simple legislation explana- injustice of alone, felons. The can become is. tion court has held that all that “this by the illustrated fact apply equally is that the statute running a red person its terms a under long all members the class and drink, h., had p. had not m.
light at 90
is a valid reason for a
there
classification
another,
but a misde-
faces
kills
but who
legislature,
jail,
while one who
their determination of the
meanor
1947,
Capps,
189,
111
Although
the identical
act. State v.
Utah
we have
McQuilkin, 1948,
proved
873;
v.
P.2d
State
176
must be
which
433;
268,
P.2d
constituted
113
Read, 1952,
homiсide act
manslaughter
voluntary
121 Utah
strikes felon drugged driver becomes drunk misdemeanants, fellow
while all —the ones, the willful
speeders, reckless ones, hot-rodders, dare-
malicious roaders,
devils, wrong side licenses, the drivers with revoked
drivers nature because cannot obtain licenses safely “incapable driv- made them
itself vehicle,” many types of
ing a safely incapacity drive showing
“classes” misdemeanor than a no more fear
need their brethren with jail, while year in get book. breath
baited *7 P.2d Respondent, SEVY, Frank Plaintiff and
T. COM- FARM BUREAU INSURANCE
UTAH corporation, PANY, a Utah Appellant.
No. 8952.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Jan.