Lambert v. Municipal Court

California Supreme Court

Lambert v. Municipal Court

349 P.2d 984, 53 Cal. 2d 690, 3 Cal. Rptr. 168, 1960 Cal. LEXIS 245

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1960

DocketL. A. 25598

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 349 P.2d 984 (Lambert v. Municipal Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lambert v. Municipal Court, 349 P.2d 984, 53 Cal. 2d 690, 3 Cal. Rptr. 168, 1960 Cal. LEXIS 245 (Cal. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERS, J.

By this petition appellant seeks a writ of prohibition from the superior court directed to the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Municipal District, restraining that court from proceeding with her trial on charges of violating sections 52.38 to 52.43 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles. The enumerated sections comprise a criminal registration ordinance, and are the identical sections held to be unconstitutional in the ease of Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 674 [3 Cal.Rptr. 158, 349 P.2d 974] (L. A. 25657) decided today.

Appellant was originally tried and convicted in the respondent court for failure to register under the provisions of the ordinance, and her conviction was affirmed by the ap *691 pellate department of the superior court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. In Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 [78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228], that court reversed that conviction on the ground that Lambert was denied the opportunity to prove lack of knowledge of the requirement to register. The United States Supreme Court expressly refrained from passing upon appellant’s claim that the statute was unconstitutional per so, leaving that question for the determination of the state courts.

After remand from the United States Supreme Court, the municipal court (respondent herein) ordered a new trial. Thereupon appellant filed the instant petition for prohibition, urging that the ordinance is unconstitutional per se in several respects. She also contends that the decision of the United States Supreme Court bars further trial in her ease. Because of our determination on the question of constitutionality, the latter point has become moot.

Prohibition is the proper remedy in the situation here presented (Kelly v. Municipal Court, 160 Cal.App.2d 38, 46 [324 P.2d 990]).

The decision of this court in Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, supra, this day decided, determines all points here relevant. The ordinance in question contravenes the provisions of section 11 of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California in that it is in conflict with state legislation that already occupies the same field. On the authority of the Abbott case the judgment is reversed with instructions to the trial court to issue the writ as prayed.

Gibson, C. J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., Spence, J., McComb, J., and Tobriner J. pro tem., * concurred.

Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 23, 1960. Tobriner, Judge pro tern.,* participated therein in place of White, J., who deemed himself disqualified.

*

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PETERS, J.

By this petition appellant seeks a writ of prohibition from the superior court directed to the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Municipal District, restraining that court from proceeding with her trial on charges of violating sections 52.38 to 52.43 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles. The enumerated sections comprise a criminal registration ordinance, and are the identical sections held to be unconstitutional in the ease of Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 674 [3 Cal.Rptr. 158, 349 P.2d 974] (L. A. 25657) decided today.

Appellant was originally tried and convicted in the respondent court for failure to register under the provisions of the ordinance, and her conviction was affirmed by the ap *691 pellate department of the superior court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. In Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 [78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228], that court reversed that conviction on the ground that Lambert was denied the opportunity to prove lack of knowledge of the requirement to register. The United States Supreme Court expressly refrained from passing upon appellant’s claim that the statute was unconstitutional per so, leaving that question for the determination of the state courts.

After remand from the United States Supreme Court, the municipal court (respondent herein) ordered a new trial. Thereupon appellant filed the instant petition for prohibition, urging that the ordinance is unconstitutional per se in several respects. She also contends that the decision of the United States Supreme Court bars further trial in her ease. Because of our determination on the question of constitutionality, the latter point has become moot.

Prohibition is the proper remedy in the situation here presented (Kelly v. Municipal Court, 160 Cal.App.2d 38, 46 [324 P.2d 990]).

The decision of this court in Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, supra, this day decided, determines all points here relevant. The ordinance in question contravenes the provisions of section 11 of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California in that it is in conflict with state legislation that already occupies the same field. On the authority of the Abbott case the judgment is reversed with instructions to the trial court to issue the writ as prayed.

Gibson, C. J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., Spence, J., McComb, J., and Tobriner J. pro tem., * concurred.

Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 23, 1960. Tobriner, Judge pro tern.,* participated therein in place of White, J., who deemed himself disqualified.

*

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 P.2d 984, 53 Cal. 2d 690, 3 Cal. Rptr. 168, 1960 Cal. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-municipal-court-cal-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack