People v. Perreault

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California

People v. Perreault

182 Cal. App. 2d 843

CourtAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California

DecidedJune 10, 1960

DocketCrim. A. No. 4374

StatusPublished

This text of 182 Cal. App. 2d 843 (People v. Perreault) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Perreault, 182 Cal. App. 2d 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

SWAIN, P. J.

The defendant was charged with violating that part of Penal Code, section 273g, which provides: “Any person who ... is habitually drunk in the presence of any child in his care, custody or control, is guilty of a misdemeanor. ’ ’ Prior to the introduction of evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that said section violates the due process requirements of the Constitutions of the United States and of California in that the meaning of the words “habitually drunk” is vague, uncertain and ambiguous. The motion was granted and the People appeal. That the motion was well taken is settled by In re Newbern (1960), 53 Cal.2d 786 [3 Cal.Rptr. 364, 350 P.2d 116], which holds that “common drunk” as used in Pen. Code, section 647, sub[844]*844division 11, is too uncertain even though it has been defined as habitual or frequent. The opinion, after reviewing many authorities which attempt to define “habitual,” states, p. 795: “It may easily be seen from the foregoing collection of cases that reasonable men differ greatly as to the meanings to be ascribed to the term common or habitual drunks or drunkards. It is also apparent that some of the definitions quoted above are not, themselves, free from a charge of ambiguity.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Huís, J., and Smith, J., concurred.

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

SWAIN, P. J.

The defendant was charged with violating that part of Penal Code, section 273g, which provides: “Any person who ... is habitually drunk in the presence of any child in his care, custody or control, is guilty of a misdemeanor. ’ ’ Prior to the introduction of evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that said section violates the due process requirements of the Constitutions of the United States and of California in that the meaning of the words “habitually drunk” is vague, uncertain and ambiguous. The motion was granted and the People appeal. That the motion was well taken is settled by In re Newbern (1960), 53 Cal.2d 786 [3 Cal.Rptr. 364, 350 P.2d 116], which holds that “common drunk” as used in Pen. Code, section 647, sub[844]*844division 11, is too uncertain even though it has been defined as habitual or frequent. The opinion, after reviewing many authorities which attempt to define “habitual,” states, p. 795: “It may easily be seen from the foregoing collection of cases that reasonable men differ greatly as to the meanings to be ascribed to the term common or habitual drunks or drunkards. It is also apparent that some of the definitions quoted above are not, themselves, free from a charge of ambiguity.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Huís, J., and Smith, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Cal. App. 2d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perreault-calappdeptsuper-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack