State v. Sommers

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court considered whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on actual physical control of a vehicle, denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal, and determined his ability to pay costs. The court held that vehicle operability is relevant to actual physical control and that the instruction stating that it did not matter whether the vehicle was incapable of moving misstated the law. The court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the acquittal motion and, if necessary, a new trial.

Holdings

1. A vehicle's inoperability or immovability does not automatically preclude actual physical control, but the fact finder must consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether the vehicle could be moved, how it came to its location, and how easily its disability could be remedied.
2. The stand-alone instruction that it did not matter whether the vehicle was incapable of moving did not fully and fairly state Montana law and prejudicially prevented Sommers from presenting the defense that the vehicle's disability made actual physical control impossible.
3. Because the District Court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal under the same incorrect legal standard used in the jury instruction, the court had to reconsider the motion under the correct standard and grant a new trial if the evidence was sufficient to withstand acquittal.
4. The Court did not reach the issue of Sommers's ability to pay costs because it reversed his conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court properly instructed the jury on the meaning of actual physical control when the defendant claimed the vehicle was disabled and immovable.
2. Whether the District Court improperly denied Sommers's motion for judgment of acquittal by applying an incorrect legal standard concerning actual physical control.
3. Whether the District Court properly determined Sommers's ability to pay costs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded