Opinion ID: 2071276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Physical Control and Vehicle Operability

Text: The General Assembly has enacted a statutory scheme that is designed to afford maximum protection from the use of a vehicle by a person who is under the influence of alcohol. The term drive is now defined as including driving, operating or having actual physical control of a vehicle. [9] A person who is driving also operates and has actual physical control of the vehicle. A person can operate a vehicle without driving it but not without having actual physical control. [10] A person can have actual physical control, however, without either operating or driving the vehicle. As the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: Insofar as physical control refers to something other than driving or operating,... physical control is meant to cover situations where an inebriated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances where the car, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property. [11] The broadest conduct that has been criminalized by the General Assembly is having actual physical control of a vehicle that is capable of being driven or operated on Delaware's highways by a person who is under the influence of alcohol. Conversely, a person cannot be properly convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol by having actual physical control of an inoperable motor vehicle. Temporary inoperability, however, does not necessarily preclude criminal liability. [12] Consequently, the nature and duration of a motor vehicle's inoperability is a factor that must be evaluated by the trier of fact with all of the other surrounding circumstances. [13] In Bodner's case, the Superior Court erred as a matter of law by not instructing the jury with the definition of actual physical control that this Court cited with approval in Purcell. [14] We have also concluded that the definition of actual physical control in Purcell should be supplemented with the following additional instruction to a jury: ... In considering whether or not the defendant was in physical control of the motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, you may consider defendant's location in or by the vehicle, the location of the ignition keys, whether the defendant had been a passenger in the vehicle before it came to rest, who owned the vehicle, the extent to which the vehicle was operable, and if inoperable, whether the vehicle might have been rendered operable without too much difficulty so as to be a danger to persons or property. You may consider these as well as any other facts or circumstances bearing on whether or not the defendant was then in physical control of a motor vehicle which was or reasonably could become a danger to persons or property while the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. [15] The deficiencies in the Superior Court's instructions with regard to the term actual physical control constituted reversible error because the complete absence of any definitional guidance undermined the ability of the jury `to intelligently perform its duty in returning a verdict.' [16]