OCR Text |
Show MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1974 INTERMOUNT A IN COMMERCIAL RECORD PAGE FIFTEEN In The Supreme Court of The State of Utah alcohol got into the blood. In determining whether the statute carries out that purpose, it should not be given any tortured or strained application to conjectured or hypothetical situations, but should be understood and applied in a fair, realistic and practical manner to the situation confronted, and in the awareness that all of the law is not stated in one sentence or one paragraph, but a statute is to be construed and applied in relation to other requirements of the law. P. 2d 488; Utah Mfrs. Ass'n v. Stewart, footnote 2 above. 4. State v. Twitchell, 8 Utah 2d 314, 333 P. 2d 1075; State v. Brennan, 13 Utah 2d 195, 371 P. 2d 27. 5. See Sec. U. C. A. 1953, now superseded by Sec. fc 2, U. C. A. 1953 (Pocket Supp. ). As to of this of class crimes where recognition the intent to do the prohibited act constitutes the offense see State v. Twitchell, footnote 4 above; and Morris ette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, which reviews the development of this class of crimes; Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514. 6. State v. Packard, 122 Utah 369, 250 P. 2d 561; United States v. Harris, 347 76-1-- This statute is part of the Motor Vehicle Code, whose purpose is to the govern safety of the use and operation of motor vehicles. Inherent in its language is the legislative determination and declaration that the stated blood content of . 10 per cent of alcohol makes it dangerous for a person to operate or be in control of a vehicle. This is one of those situations where from the doing of the prohibited act one is presumed to intend its natural consequences; and it is the intentional doing of the act prohibited by law which constitutes the offense. 5 To be considered in this connection and consistent with the conclusion we have reached is Section of the Motor Vehicle Act which expressly states that it is "a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden ' . . . in this act." (Emphasis added. ) 01 such unusual or special circumstance that the statute could penalize him for innocent conduct. He is therefore not in a position to complain in the abstract that the statute is unconstitutional because it might unjustly hurt someone else. He could properly do so only if he is himself adversely affected thereby in violation of his own constitutional rights. In accordance with our discussion herein, we are not persuaded that there is any justification for striking down the statute in question as unconstitutional. Therefore the judgment is reversed. Costs to defendant (appellant). Concerning the charge that the statute is void for vagueness: the presumption of validity hereinabove stated, gives rise to the rule that a statute will not be declared unconstitutional for that reason if under any sensible interpretation of its language it can be given practical effect. The requirement is that it must be sufficiently clear and definite to inform persons of ordinary intelligence what their conduct must be to conform to its requirements and to advise one accused of violating it what constitutes the offense with which he is charged. & This statute states with sufficient clarity and conciseness the two elements necessary to constitute its violation. They are (1) a blood alcohol concentration of . 10 per cent, and (2) concurrent operation or actual physical control of any vehicle. We can aee no reason why a person of ordinary intelligence would have any difficulty in understanding that if he has 'drunk anything containing alcohol, and particularly any substantial amount thereof, he should not attempt to drive or take control of a motor vehicle. WE CONCUR: TUCKETT, Justice: E. R. Callister, Jr. , Chief Justice A. H. Ellett, Justice (Dissenting) . The statute under consideration does not specify and prohibit conduct which might be criminal in character but it deals only with the status of one's blbod. On the same basis the legislature could denounce as a crime the appearance in a public place of one who has the virus of the common cold in his blood stream. I dissent. In regard to plaintiff's argument that there could be particular circumconduct might be in technical violastances where innocent and tion of the statute: For the purpose of analysis, accept the plaintiff's hypothconduct which is charged esis. If there is in fact innocent and would be a matter of defense to be in violation of this statute, that undoubtedly to raise a reasonable doubt that one so accused was guilty of a crime. But we do not see how, in conformity with the interests of justice, this should redound to the benefit of the plaintiff here. It does not appear that he was in fact in any 3. See Salt Lake County v. Liquor Control Commission, 11 Utah 2d 235, 357 ous us non-dangero- 76-2-1- U.S.612. 41-6-- 12 non-danger- 20, HENRIOD, Justice, does not participate herein. 7. See Walgreen Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 70 Wyo. 193, 246 P. 2d 767; 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Sec. 119. Third District Court Monday, December 2, 1974 21jbl7 - Steven 0. Smith vs Savage Scaffold Attyj David K. Winder Leonard H. Rub son Carman E, Kipp Kay M.Larsen,Ray Christen-Be- n, F. R. Bayles - Donald Ray West 211(599 , vs (Jury) Larson Ford Sales Attys; Heber G.Ivins Don J. Hanson, Raymond M. Berry, Wendell Bennett - Albert 21010 vs D. Payne (jury) American Standard, Inc. Attys; Richard Dibblee Steve ffebeker 2114313 - Myron Hamilton vs Jan R. Christensen Attys ; Nolan Olsen Mithcel Gottfredson 216215 - Maycock Co. vs Little, dba Leo Attys; Gary Paxton James Medlin 217121 vs - Capitol Building Shadowbrobk, Landmark Homes Mecham Attys; George Gary 217531 Stott, &aith Wm. - Zions First Nat.Bk vs Fred Madsen Attys; Clark Burt David Yocom 218735 - Granite 2141(38 James Clegg 210508 - Corp Trust (Jury) vs Attys; Brent Giauque Walter Ellett - Stanway Printing vs Outdoor World Inc. Attys; John McCoy Harold Hintze, Gaar Steiner 223860 - The Boyer Co. vs Melvin Hipwell Attys; David Greenwood vs (jury) C. L. Attys; Jeffery Fillmore John Sybrowskey C.L. Pettit 22361(8 - Pearl Morgan vs Flying Carpets, Inc. Attys; William L.Crawford Lee Rudd 205227 - Fred Levin . vs B. B. Keff & Sons Roger D. Robinson Attys; Guy Burningham John Runyan Richard Davidson 215180 . - Leslie D. Attys; Irving Biele Robert Backman 21U3I2 vs Reuben Eugene L. (Jury) Burrell G. Attys; D. M. Amoss Richard Maughan Tuntland vs Jane N. Kight Michael Stead Perry - Mary J. vs (Jury) Cache Valley Elect. Attys; David Goodwill Tim Hanson 217890 - Lauren Dalebout vs Robert K. Thomson Attys; Roger Cutler Thomas Du'ffin L. L. Summerhays Friday. December 6. 1974 204818 - Security Adj. Bur. David Winder Reed Martineau vs Allen Tibbals - Petty Ford Donald R. Grant 178270 Attys; E.H.Fankhauser Matt Biljanic Albert Marchant Attys; Larry V.Lunt - Ahonen Lbr Co. vs Gary Gale Croft Floors, Inc. Attys; Reed Brown 217708 Third District Court H. Tibbals - Philip F.Marstella Criminal Cases Monday, December 2, 1974 26002 - Donald M. Barron Attys; Orval Harrison Speeding Richard Dibblee vs F & Q - Hurst Pro Se Smiths Food King 6 Attys; David Greenwood 217288 Wm. Albert Santi Attys; Jeffery Fillmore vs Allen - vs David Cook 198880 - G.Eugene England 218143 Co. vs Atty; J. Kunkler 27018 - Jody C. Neff Poss of cont. substance Atty; G. Athay 27019 - Dorothy C.Luna Poss of controlled sub. Atty; G. Athay 27020 - Craig Donald Keff Poss of cont. substance Atty; G. Athay 27021 - Sidney Susan Brown - Deseret Leasing Const. Co. Attys; Lade Heat on Bailey Sainsbury 2IOO69 - J. W. Brewer Tire vs Carl Bobbins Attys; Richard Cuatto A. W. Lauritzen 1 llimBMHIHMIini Timber Lakes HlfUnifUIBIlUllMIIIIMlIllUB Attys; Richard Walker Steven Godwin 217193 vs ' - Mtn States Tel (Jury) Rulon H. Clark Rulon H. Clark 213805 - Wm. F. Waddoups vs Douglas E. Monson Leon Halgren 209480 - Boise vs Plastics T. Chatwin Attys; Dale Dorius Thomas Duffin 217264 - Cannon Slaugh vs Ray Don Brawn - Raymond ;B.r Grant, vs Cassic F, Jones Attys; Roger Cutler 211304 I SLootnfield Attysj Clayton Fairbourn 217315 Layton Co. I Attys; Leonard Burningham Attys; Stanford Snith 213879 Attys; Jerrald D.Conder Robert Van Sciver 211461 - Terry West, dba Attys; Robert Merrill Soeffker 217286- - James R. . Loveland vs Wednesday, December 4,1974 202004 - Paul Lamont Wm. - Vaughn Keller vs ' Richard M.Stewart Fairbourn Richard Moffat Virgil L. Chadsey,etal 217570 vs Neal R. Morris Attys; David Smith Gary Sargent Ned Wamock Howard Baysinger vs Stephen Nebeker - Florence Hero Attys; Tuesday t December 3. 197 195750 - George J.Condas,Ad. Attys; Duffy Palmer Tom Vuyk 215765 - McKay M. vs Richard Doxey Richard 3. Jones Attys; Gaylen Young Mary Godbe, David Trask D. Eugene Moench Monarch Motors Attysj Victor Sogers - 217443 - V3 Robert VanSciver vs Thursday, December 5 1974 215446 -- Richard Maxwell vs vs South Village, Inc. - Maureen Taylor vs Keith O'Brien, Inc. Dale Dorius Robert Howell - Elsie A. Pollock 211738 Attys; P. Fishier Donald D. Bennion Attys; Ford Scalley vs Pettit - Marybeth Weidner vs LjERichardsonjL.L.Summer- vs vs vs L. L.' Summerhays 217093 - Wasatch Roofing Attys; Virginious Dabney - The Sterling Press Briton McConkie 212515 - Valley Fair Merch. 218276 L. E. Richardson Leon Ridd Attys; Reed Brown 218264 Norman Kuehne Attys; Thomas Vuyk Ben Lambert Dabney vs Henriksen vs Lambert, etal Attys; Stephen Morgan Lambert us Jansen George Khowlden 210206 Mil Alan Frandsen 215371 - H. C- Alder 4. Son vs Frank Crise Attys; Gordon Madsen Brnt H. Wall 217986 - Interstate Collect, Ben Sarle Atty;s Virginius Salisbury Attys; Brian Barnard Builders Home 210702 Mel Gravel - John Anderson Gordon Esplin 214321 - David E. & Attys; Robert Ryberg Ann D. Simmons 214680 - Utah Sand vs Western Co. vs (Jury) George N. Phelps C. R. . Calendar Attys; J. Meservy Lamont Earl Attys; John McCoy David Halliday 205749 - Myron Rigby vs Datacap,etal Attys; Lorin Pace Kay Lewis 219289 vs - Rita T. Siwik Under the new Pension Law it is estimated that of existing retirement plans need some 90 type of revision to remain qualified. If you presently have a retirement plan, you have one chance out of ten that your plan needs no changes. If you don't like the odds or are considering setting up a new Retirement Fund call Hugh Snyder or Mel Marker at: 322-160- 5 INCOME TRUST PLANS, INC. 1088 South 1100 East PENSION ACTUARIES AND CONSUL TANTS |