Opinion ID: 891641
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DWI Statute and Jurisprudence

Text: {7} The New Mexico Motor Vehicle Code provides that [i]t is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive a vehicle within this state. Section 66-8-102(A). Prior to 1953, the Legislature had limited the statutory proscription to driving a vehicle while under the influence, which is similar to the way the statute now reads. NMSA 1941, § 68-502 (1929, prior to 1953 amendment). In 1953, however, the Legislature changed the wording to make it unlawful for any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State. 1953 N.M. Laws, ch. 139, § 54 (emphasis added). At the same time, the Legislature statutorily defined driver for the first time to mean [e]very person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. 1953 N.M. Laws, ch. 139, § 11 (emphasis added). After these amendments, the substantive statute and the definition remained unchanged until 1978. {8} In 1978, the Legislature amended the definition of driver, changing vehicle to motor vehicle and appending the phrase including a motor-driven cycle, upon a highway or who is exercising control over, or steering, a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle. 1978 N.M. Laws, ch. 35, § 4(17) (codified as amended at NMSA 1978, § 66-1-4.4(k) (1990, as amended through 2007)). The Legislature did not make similar changes to any other sections of the Motor Vehicle Code. {9} In 1979, the Legislature struck the actual physical control language from each of the substantive Motor Vehicle Code sections relating to DWI, but retained it in the driver definition. See 1979 N.M. Laws, ch. 71, §§ 1, 7, 8, 11 (retaining actual physical control in Section 66-1-4.4(K) and deleting the phrase from Sections 66-8-102, -107, and -112, respectively). The term driver appears in numerous locations throughout the Motor Vehicle Code and the definition applies universally. See NMSA 1978, § 66-1-4 (1978, as amended through 1991) (stating that the definition sections define terms for general purposes of the Motor Vehicle Code). As a result of these changes, the Legislature made the substantive DWI provision inconsistent with the driver definition in two ways: (1) the DWI section referred to vehicle rather than motor vehicle; and (2) it no longer used actual physical control, whereas the driver definition still did. One possible interpretation of this across-the-board omission from the substantive provisions is that the Legislature intended to return to the pre-1953 DWI provision when actual physical control was not an element of the DWI crime and only driving while intoxicated was proscribed. {10} In 1986, however, this Court interpreted these cumulative changes to convey the Legislature's intent not to sever the driver definition from the substantive DWI section, or as a substantive change to return to the language of the pre-1953 provision, but to streamline and clarify the Motor Vehicle Code. Boone v. State, 105 N.M. 223, 225, 731 P.2d 366, 368 (1986). Finding as a matter of law that the term drive was unclear, the Boone Court turned to statutory construction to resolve the ambiguity. Id. Rather than interpret the 1979 omission of or be in actual physical control of from the DWI section as evidence that the Legislature intended to narrow the scope of the statutory offense, this Court found that the intent was to make the DWI section consistent with the Motor Vehicle Code's recently revised definition of driver. Id. at 225-26, 731 P.2d at 368-69. In 1978, the Motor Vehicle Code was rewritten substantially, and the definition of driver was amended to encompass every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle ... or who is exercising control over, or steering, a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle. The new definition was inconsistent with the unchanged DWI section in its references to motor vehicles but not in its use of the phrase drives or is in actual physical control of. Id. at 225, 731 P.2d at 368 (citation omitted). {11} The Boone Court determined that the Legislature intended that the definition of driver and the DWI section must be consistent, and that the Legislature had two options in 1979 to reconcile them as a result of the 1978 changes. The Legislature could have conformed Section 66-8-102 to the definition by adding the appropriate references to motor vehicles and towed vehicles. Instead it chose to streamline and clarify the DWI section by using only the statutorily defined term, `drives.' Id. The Boone Court, as Chief Justice Minzner noted in her dissent in Johnson, applied the definition of the term drives coextensively with the term driver, because the Motor Vehicle Code does not actually define the term drives. 2001-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 34-36, 130 N.M. 6, 15 P.3d 1233 (Minzner, C.J., and Franchini, J., dissenting). The Boone majority cited a Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Kloch, 230 Pa.Super. 563, 327 A.2d 375, 383 (1974) (using operator and operation to apply to verb operate), for the interpretive approach equating drive with driver. [1] Boone, 105 N.M. at 225, 731 P.2d at 368. {12} Using this method of construction, the Boone Court determined that the amendments to the DWI section and the Motor Vehicle Code intended to make clear that the Legislature's definition of driver applies to the offense of DWI. We therefore hold that Section 66-8-102 makes it unlawful for any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle or to exercise control over or steer a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle; motion of the vehicle is not a necessary element of the offense. Id. at 226, 731 P.2d at 369. According to this interpretation, the Legislature's purpose was to keep the actual physical control language in the substantive DWI provisions, because the driver definition was meant to apply to every substantive provision using the word drive. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the Legislature to restate in every relevant DWI provision or be in actual physical control because the phrase was automatically incorporated by reference to the driver definition. [2]