Opinion ID: 2280788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ordinary Persons Understand What is Meant by Intoxicated Condition and Under the Influence.

Text: Missouri authority holds that ordinary persons understand what is meant by the terms intoxicated condition and under the influence. In State v. Johnson, 55 S.W.2d 967, 968 (Mo.1932), this Court held that [a]ny juror would readily understand what was meant by a charge of operating a motor vehicle while defendant was in an intoxicated condition. This Court added that an attempt to define such words would tend to confuse rather than clarify the issues. Id. In State v. Raines, 333 Mo. 538, 62 S.W.2d 727, 729 (1933), this Court held that: A jury would readily understand that what is meant by an intoxicated condition in connection with a charge of this nature is drunkenness to such an extent that it interferes with the proper operation of an automobile by the defendant. Id. Since Raines, other Missouri courts have also recognized that a driver is in an intoxicated condition for purposes of a DWI prosecution if his use of alcohol impairs his ability to operate an automobile. See State v. Cox, 478 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo.1972); State v. Hoy, 219 S.W.3d 796, 801 (Mo.App.2007). Schroeder correctly states that some states have more specific definitions of intoxicated or under the influence, but this is irrelevant to whether the language used in Missouri's statute is unconstitutionally vague. It is more instructive that no other jurisdiction has held that a DWI statute similar to Missouri's is unconstitutionally vague.