Hughes v. State
1975 OK CR 83, 535 P.2d 1023, 1975 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 346 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is in 'actual physical control' of a motor vehicle while intoxicated if they are in the driver's seat with the present ability to operate the vehicle, even if they are asleep or the vehicle is not moving.
Facts:
- On September 3, 1973, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Trooper Don Fields was dispatched to investigate an improperly parked vehicle.
- Fields observed a Buick sitting at a 90-degree angle on a roadway.
- Charles Hughes was in the driver's seat, with his feet under the steering wheel and his head leaning toward the passenger side.
- Hughes's son was asleep in the back seat.
- The key was in the vehicle's ignition.
- After being awakened by the trooper, Hughes was unstable on his feet, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and smelled strongly of alcohol.
- In the trooper's opinion, Hughes was very intoxicated.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Hughes was charged in the District Court, Cherokee County, for the crime of Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor.
- Following a trial, Hughes was convicted of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced Hughes to thirty days in the county jail and a fine of $100.00.
- Hughes, as appellant, perfected a timely appeal from 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 found intoxicated and asleep in the driver's seat of a non-moving vehicle, with the keys in the ignition, have 'actual physical control' of the vehicle sufficient to sustain a conviction under 47 O.S. § 11-902?
Opinions:
Majority - Bussey, Judge
Yes. A person found intoxicated and asleep in the driver's seat of a stationary vehicle with the keys in the ignition is in 'actual physical control' of the vehicle. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the statute is to prevent intoxicated individuals from operating vehicles before they start driving and pose a danger to the public. 'Actual physical control' is defined as the existing or present bodily restraint, directing influence, domination, or regulation of a vehicle. The court concluded that an intoxicated person seated behind the steering wheel presents a threat to public safety, as there is a legitimate inference they placed themselves there and could start the car at any time. Therefore, the potential to operate the vehicle is sufficient to constitute 'actual physical control' under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of DUI-related offenses beyond the act of driving. It establishes the precedent that 'actual physical control' does not require the vehicle to be in motion or even running. By focusing on the potential danger an intoxicated person poses simply by being in a position to operate a vehicle, the ruling provides a preventative tool for law enforcement. This interpretation has been widely adopted and influences how similar statutes are applied, shifting the legal focus from the vehicle's movement to the driver's capability and proximity to control.
