State v. Dellinger
327 S.E.2d 609, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3396, 73 N.C. App. 685 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A horse is considered a 'vehicle' for the purposes of North Carolina's impaired driving statute, and a person riding a horse on a public highway is an 'operator' subject to the same laws as a person driving a motor vehicle.
Facts:
- The defendant rode a horse on a public street.
- While riding the horse, the defendant was under the influence of an impairing substance.
- A subsequent chemical analysis of the defendant's breath was administered.
- The analysis revealed that the defendant had an alcohol concentration of 0.18.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with the offense of impaired driving in a North Carolina trial court.
- The defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that a horse is not a 'vehicle' under the statute and raising several constitutional objections.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- The defendant also moved to exclude the testimony of the breathalyzer operator, which the trial court denied.
- Following the trial court proceedings, the defendant appealed the adverse rulings to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, appearing as the appellant against the State as appellee.
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 horse qualify as a 'vehicle' under North Carolina's impaired driving statute, G.S. 20-138.1, such that a person can be convicted of impaired driving for riding a horse while under the influence of alcohol?
Opinions:
Majority - Eagles, J.
Yes. A horse is a vehicle for the purpose of the impaired driving statute, G.S. 20-138.1. The court reasoned that the statutory definition of 'vehicle' in G.S. 20-4.01(49) — 'every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway' — is intentionally broad and is sufficient to cover a ridden animal. The court found persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, such as Kansas, that had interpreted an identical statute to include a saddle horse. Furthermore, the court pointed to G.S. 20-171, which explicitly subjects persons 'riding an animal' on a highway to the same traffic laws as the 'driver of a vehicle,' indicating clear legislative intent to regulate such activity for public safety. Therefore, a person riding an impaired horse is an 'operator' in 'control of a vehicle which is in motion' and can be found guilty of impaired driving. The court also rejected the defendant's constitutional challenges, holding that a chemical analysis is not a critical stage requiring counsel and that statutes regarding breathalyzer procedures do not violate equal protection or improperly shift the burden of proof.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in North Carolina by expanding the scope of the impaired driving statute beyond motorized conveyances. By interpreting 'vehicle' to include a horse, the court clarified that the focus of DWI laws is on the danger posed by an impaired operator on a public way, regardless of the mode of transportation. This decision serves as a warning that unconventional forms of transport are not exempt from traffic safety laws and provides a framework for courts to analyze whether other non-motorized 'devices' fall under the statute's purview. It solidifies the principle that legislative intent to protect public safety allows for a broad application of such statutes.
