Opinion ID: 1177801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conviction on Multiple Counts.

Text: Appellant, convicted of multiple counts under NRS 484.3795, urges this court to adopt the rule announced in two California appellate court decisions. Those cases hold that violation of the drunk driving law results in only one offense, and consequently one sentence, regardless of the number of victims. People v. Moore, 20 Cal. App.3d 444, 97 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971); People v. Lobaugh, 18 Cal. App.3d 75, 95 Cal. Rptr. 547 (1971). In Lobaugh, the court determined that ... the fundamental concern of the state is not the outrage done the victims, but rather the prevention of drunken driving and the punishment of those who so conduct themselves... . [I]t is not the receiving of the injury that concerns the state, but the causing of such injuries which the state seeks to minimize. Id. 95 Cal. Rptr. at 549-50 (quoting People v. Chatham, 43 Cal. App.2d 298, 110 P.2d 704, 706 (1941)). The California cases depart from the usual rule, long established in Nevada, that a course of conduct resulting in harm to multiple victims gives rise to multiple charges of the offense. See State v. Lambert, 9 Nev. 321 (1874). Appellant urges us to apply the Lobaugh court's reasoning to NRS 484.3795 because Nevada's statute is similar to California's. We fail to perceive that this is a compelling reason to adopt the Lobaugh court's rationale. We believe that the Lobaugh court too narrowly defines the public policy concerns underlying drunken driving statutes. We are convinced that the state is concerned with both the causing and receiving of the injuries which the legislature has sought to minimize. We therefore uphold the conviction of the two felony counts. GUNDERSON, C.J., and SPRINGER, MOWBRAY and STEFFEN, JJ., concur.