State v. Harkness

One of the defendant’s specifications of error was that the district court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict and for discharge at the close of the state’s case in chief. While it is with reluctance that I reach the conclusion the district court erred in the matter specified, I am of the opinion, for reasons hereafter stated, the motion should have been sustained and the defendant discharged.

The parties concede that the state was required to prove two essential elements of the crime charged: First, that the defendant *585was in fact operating a motor vehicle upon a public…