California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cabrera, B244389 (Cal. App. 2013):
Relying on People v. Hurtado (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 633, respondent argues that even if the crimes occurred at the same time and place, the conduct underlying the 647.6 violation did not "play[] a significant part" within the meaning of Kellett in the commission of the section 311.11 violation. In Hurtado, the court held that section 654 did not bar separate prosecutions for driving under the influence and possession of heroin, even though the police discovered 20 balloons of heroin in the car when the defendant was stopped for driving under the influence. (Id. at p. 637.) The court explained: "[T]he evidentiary pictures which had to be painted to prove the drunk driving and narcotics offenses were sufficiently distinct so as to permit separate prosecutions of the two offenses. . . . Evidence in the two cases[] was for the most part mutually exclusive, the only common ground being the fact that defendant was in the moving automobile in possession of the heroin at the
Page 10
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.