Other Cases Affecting Children

People v. Goslar (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 270 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 558]. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1.

The defendant, a 19-year-old, was found guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated based on Vehicle Code section 23140, which directs that no person under the age of 21 shall drive with a blood alcohol level of .05 or more. However, he was found not guilty of causing injury while driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater. The defendant and a friend drove to Tijuana, Mexico. The two drank in Tijuana and early in the morning decided to head home. The friend stated that he was too drunk to drive. Although he did not have a driver’s license, the defendant volunteered to drive, claiming that he was not drunk. Driving up the freeway, the defendant was involved in an accident in which two people were killed. The officer on the scene, after smelling a strong odor of alcohol and noticing other signs of inebriation, concluded the defendant was under the influence and placed him under arrest. A blood sample taken a few hours after the accident revealed that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was slightly below .05. A prosecution expert testified that at the time of the accident the defendant’s blood alcohol level was over .08; however, the jury convicted only for vehicular manslaughter based on a person under 21 driving with a blood alcohol content of .05 or higher.

The defendant appealed, claiming that Vehicle Code section 23140 denies him equal protection and is void for vagueness. The Court of Appeal found that the section does not deny him equal protection and that he did not have standing to claim that the statute was void for vagueness. The appellate court held that even assuming that people over the age of 21 who drink and people under the age of 21 who drink are similarly situated, the state still had a compelling interest for the classification. The court looked at the legislative history and found that younger drivers are less experienced at driving and more susceptible to the effects of alcohol and, therefore, that treating them differently furthered the state’s compelling interest in protecting the public highways for the safety of all people.

The appellate court found that the defendant could not challenge the statute as vague. The defendant claimed that the portion of the statute that makes it a crime for a person under the age of 21 to drive while "affected by" an alcoholic beverage was void for vagueness because one could not determine what "affected by" meant. The appellate court found that the defendant was convicted for driving under the influence, another part of the statute, and therefore could not challenge the "affected by" language.