North Carolina DUI Lawyers Driving While Impaired Laws Charlotte County Private Property NC 20-4.01(32)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER BOBBY TURNER, JR.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
December 20, 1994, Filed

When defendant returned to his mobile home, he encountered an officer of the Charlotte Police Department, who asked defendant whether he had been drinking. Defendant responded affirmatively. The officer placed defendant under arrest and transported him to the intake center. Defendant subsequently registered a blood alcohol content reading of .22 on the intoxilyzer machine.  Defendant was charged by citation with driving while impaired. From a conviction in district court, he appealed to superior court, where he was found guilty of the offense by a jury. He appeals from a judgment suspending sentence imposed upon the conviction.

Issue:

• Whether the mobile home park in which the defendant drove was private property or a public vehicular area?
• Whether the trail court erred in defendant's conviction for driving while under the influence of an impairing substance?

The Court states that "Any area within the State of North Carolina that is generally open to and used by the public for vehicular traffic, including by way of illustration and not limitation any drive, driveway, road, roadway, street, alley, or parking lot.  The term 'public vehicular area' shall also include . . . any road opened to vehicular traffic within or leading to a subdivision for use by subdivision residents, their guests, and members of the public, whether or not the subdivision roads have been offered for dedication to the public. The term 'public vehicular area' shall not be construed to mean any private property not generally open to and used by the public."  The evidence shows that Timberline Mobile Home Park is owned by one individual, who has divided the property into lots for lease. The mobile home park thus fits within the foregoing definition of a subdivision. The evidence further shows that the streets are not marked by signs indicating the roads are private or by signs prohibiting trespassing, and that the streets are available for use by residents and their guests or other visitors. We therefore conclude that a jury could find that Ann Elizabeth Drive is a public vehicular area within the meaning of G.S. § 20-4.01(32).

This Court held that the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.