Court Opinion

ID: 9717121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:58:43.430083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.371573
License: Public Domain

Grimes, J.,
dissenting: I cannot conclude, as the Court does, that the district court has certified this case to us in advance of ruling to ask if it can find on the evidence that the defendant op - erated the car to the place where he was found by the policeman. Not only did the defendant tell both the policeman and the doctor that he had, but under fairly elementary law which the Court doubtless knew, it could be so found from the circumstantial evidence. This I am sure was not the problem. The district court without doubt also knew that it could find that the defendant’s condition at the time he drove the car to that location was such as to make his operation in violation of RSA 262-A: 62 only by indulging in sheer speculation.
Since the State is contending here that the defendant was “operating or attempting to operate’’the car when he was found (which was close enough to the time of the blood test to permit a finding that he was under the influence within the meaning of RSA 262 - A:62 ) it seems clear to me that it was making the same contention before the district court and that this was the issue raised by the defendant’s motion.
The basis of the motion was “that this fact situation did not constitute ‘ operating or attempting to operate ’ under the provisions of RSA 262-A:62. ” The “fact situation” referred to is the situation in which defendant was found by the officer. Nothing is said about the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that he had driven the car to that location.
Of course the defendant was not “operating or attempting to *185operate ” the car when he was found. He had in fact deliberately stopped operating it and had purposely parked it as far off the road as he could, left his lights on for safety and left the motor and heater running for warmth. He hardly could be operating or attempting to operate the car while he was asleep. Since he could not be found to have been in violation of RSA 262-A:62 at the time he was found, (State v. Scanlon ( decided this date) ), the motion to dismiss should be granted.