Bearden v. State
430 P.2d 844, 1967 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 370, 1967 OK CR 133 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is not in "actual physical control" of a vehicle for the purposes of a DUI statute if they are found outside the vehicle and are subsequently placed inside it by a law enforcement officer.
Facts:
- An accident occurred involving a pickup truck, which ended up partially off the shoulder of the road in a bar ditch.
- When Acting City Marshal Eddie Mackey arrived on scene, he found Arthur Bearden lying on the ground outside the pickup truck.
- Mackey woke Bearden and, after confirming he was not hurt, put Bearden inside the truck.
- Bearden attempted to get out of the pickup, but Mackey prevented him from doing so for safety reasons.
- The pickup truck was never observed moving by any of the state's witnesses.
- No witness saw Bearden, or anyone else, drive or operate the vehicle at any time.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Bearden was charged by information with being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in the County Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a guilty verdict.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction against Bearden and sentenced him to a fine of $300 and 30 days in jail.
- Bearden, as Plaintiff in Error, appealed the judgment and sentence to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person have 'actual physical control' of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor if they are found by law enforcement outside the vehicle and are then placed inside it by an officer?
Opinions:
Majority - Nix, Presiding Judge
No. A person does not have 'actual physical control' of a vehicle when placed inside it by law enforcement. The court reasoned that the statutory requirement of 'actual physical control' means having an existing or present bodily restraint, directing influence, domination, or regulation of the automobile. The state's evidence failed to establish this element. All witnesses testified they never saw the vehicle move or saw Bearden operate it. Crucially, the evidence showed Bearden was found outside the vehicle and was only inside because an officer placed him there. From that point on, Bearden was effectively under arrest and did not have the requisite control over the vehicle to be guilty of the offense. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, and the trial judge should have directed a verdict of not guilty.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of "actual physical control" in DUI law. It establishes that the defendant's presence and potential control over the vehicle must be voluntary and not the result of actions by law enforcement. The ruling prevents the state from manufacturing the elements of the crime by its own conduct. This precedent protects individuals from being convicted based on a situation created by police rather than by their own actions, reinforcing the principle that the state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
