State v. Garber
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the Court
Defendant appeals his conviction at a bench trial of being in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2). We affirm.
Defendant’s primary challenges rest on the premise that “actual physical control of any vehicle” within the meaning of § 1201 requires that the vehicle be operable. Following from this, defendant argues that because the trial court did not find against his testimony that he had pulled the coil wire before entering his vehicle, this element of operability has not been found or proven.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. StorrsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- State v. TaceySupreme Court of Vermont · 1930
- State v. GriffinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. StarfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- State v. StarfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992