AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was found intoxicated in the driver’s seat of a parked truck on private property. The keys were in the ignition, but the engine was not running. A police officer observed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, watery eyes, and a strong smell of alcohol. The Defendant failed two field sobriety tests and refused a third. Breath tests showed a blood alcohol content of .35 and .34 (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: Found the Defendant guilty of aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI) and possession of open containers of alcohol in a motor vehicle (para 4).
• District Court: Dismissed the DWI charge, ruling that the Defendant was not in violation of the statute because the vehicle was on private property and not on a highway (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the DWI statute applies to individuals in actual physical control of a vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle is on private property or a highway. The State contended that the trial court misapplied the statute (paras 4, 11).
• Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the DWI statute does not apply to individuals in actual physical control of a non-moving vehicle on private property, relying on the statutory language and jury instructions (paras 11, 14).

Legal Issues

• Does the DWI statute apply to an individual in actual physical control of a non-moving vehicle on private property?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the DWI charge against the Defendant (para 18).

Reasons

Per Pickard CJ. (Donnelly and Bustamante JJ. concurring):

• The Court conducted a de novo review of the statutory language and related provisions. It noted that the DWI statute prohibits driving under the influence anywhere in the state but emphasized that the definition of "driving" includes being in actual physical control of a vehicle (paras 5-6).
• The Court distinguished prior case law, which involved vehicles on public roads or highways, from the present case, where the vehicle was on private property and not in motion. It held that the DWI statute does not apply to individuals in actual physical control of a non-moving vehicle on private property (paras 8-11).
• The Court relied on the Uniform Jury Instruction (UJI 14-4511), which specifies that actual physical control of a vehicle must occur on a highway for a DWI conviction. The commentary to the UJI supports the view that individuals in control of a vehicle off the road are not guilty of DWI (paras 14-15).
• The Court reasoned that applying the DWI statute to stationary vehicles on private property would not serve the statute’s public policy goal of protecting the public from intoxicated drivers on public roads. It also noted that such an application could discourage individuals from making responsible decisions, such as choosing not to drive after realizing they are intoxicated (paras 16-17).