Court Opinion

ID: 9517443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:17:18.232861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:15.745166
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(concurring).
It would seem that a jury question was also presented as to whether defendant violated the requirement that a driver “shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or as close thereto as possible”. Code, 1966, § 321.261 (italics added). Defendant drove on three-tenths of a mile to a half mile. Three-tenths of a mile would be 1,584 feet. Surely it was “possible” for defendant to stop in a shorter distance than that — or the jury could so find. See People v. Steele, 100 Cal.App. 639, 646, 280 P. 999, 1002 (the defendant drove on four blocks — “Whatever may be required under the circumstances must therefore necessarily be a question of fact to be determined by the jury”). A main purpose of the stopping requirement is to *777make clear from the position of the vehicle itself what vehicle and driver were involved, and that purpose is frustrated if the driver does not “immediately stop” at “the scene” or as close “as possible.” See State v. Milligan, 87 Ariz. 165, 349 P.2d 180; People v. Scofield, 203 Cal. 703, 265 P. 914; People v. Foreman, 205 Cal.App.2d 485, 22 Cal.Rptr. 925; People v. Nails, 10 Ill.2d 279, 139 N.E.2d 744; People v. Hoaglin, 262 Mich. 162, 247 N.W. 141; State v. Mealey, 100 N.H. 228, 122 A.2d 921.
The statutory requirements to stop and to render aid are separate. § 321.261 (“Any person failing to stop or comply with said requirements under such circumstances shall upon conviction be punished” — italics added); State v. Severance, 120 Vt. 268, 273, 138 A.2d 425, 428 (“where several distinct acts are required the omission of any one or more of them constitutes a violation”) ; People v. Scofield, 203 Cal. 703, 265 P. 914; People v. Steele, 100 Cal.App. 639, 280 P. 999. Failure to stop in the manner required is in itself a violation of the statute. State v. Severance, 120 Vt. 268, 273, 138 A.2d 425, 428-429 (“it can not be said that he was not required to stop even though it should subsequently develop that no assistance could be rendered”); State v. Clark, 67 S.D. 133, 290 N.W. 237; Garcia v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 84, 96 S.W. 2d 977.