Byrd

Byrd v. Municipal Court

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 3d 1054·178 Cal. Rptr. 480·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2393
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1981Docket Nos. 52121, 53005California1,167 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scott, J.

The appellants in these consolidated cases appeal from orders of the superior court denying their petitions for writs of prohibition and/or mandate.

Appellants Robert Byrd, Howard Koch, George Shelby and William Chikan were each charged by separate complaint with driving “under the influence of intoxicating liquor and under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs” in violation of Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a). Each demurred to the complaint, and the demurrers were overruled by the municipal court. Seeking to restrain further prosecution, appellants petitioned for writs of prohibition and/ or mandate in the superior court; the petitions were denied and these consolidated appeals followed.

The sole question presented is whether the complaints against appellants give constitutionally adequate notice of the allegations against which they will be required to defend. Relying on Sallas v. Municipal Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 737 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 543 ], appellants argue that the use of the word “drugs” in the complaint does not afford them adequate notice; they urge that unless the prosecution specifically indicates at a minimum the class of drugs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.