Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Kroncke

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 31, 1999No. A077974Published

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*1558CORRIGAN, Acting P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of my learned colleagues with regard to appellant’s felony conviction. This case involves a very narrow issue: the scope of a motorist’s responsibility to stop and provide identifying information under Vehicle Code section 20003.

Vehicle Code section 20003 as enacted by the Legislature essentially requires a motorist involved in an accident causing death or injury to do two things, 1) stop at the scene and 2) provide identifying information about himself, the car and the owner.1 The majority adds an…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Gilbert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API