- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
STATE v. CARAWAN
Factual and Procedural Background
The defendant, Karen Gail Carawan, was convicted by a jury of impaired driving in the Superior Court of Craven County, North Carolina. The incident occurred in Bicentennial Park, a park jointly maintained by the city of New Bern and Craven County. Although the park is generally closed to motor vehicles, on the date of the offense it was legally used as a parking lot for a special event, the Trent River raft race, during which approximately 200 vehicles were parked. The defendant allegedly drove while impaired within this parking area and backed her car into another vehicle. The defendant appealed the judgment of imprisonment, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that the offense took place on a "public vehicular area" under North Carolina law.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish that the defendant's impaired driving occurred upon a "public vehicular area" as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32).
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant contended that the park grounds could not be considered a "public vehicular area" because the area was not "generally open to and used by the public," as required by the statutory definition.
- She argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the offense occurred in such an area, thus warranting dismissal and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
State's Arguments
- The State maintained that the portion of the park in question was legally in use as a parking lot for a public event and was maintained and supported by city and county subdivisions of the State, fitting within the statutory definition of a "public vehicular area."
- The State argued that the legislature intended to protect persons in such areas from impaired drivers, supporting a broad interpretation of the term.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E.2d 765 (1970) | Legislative intent governs statutory construction; courts should avoid interpretations defeating legislative purpose. | The court relied on Spencer to interpret "public vehicular area" in a manner consistent with legislative intent to protect the public from impaired drivers. |
| State v. Bowen, 67 N.C. App. 512, 313 S.E.2d 196, appeal dismissed, 312 N.C. 79, 320 S.E.2d 405 (1984) | Evidence sufficient to infer a driveway to a condominium complex was a "public vehicular area" under a prior version of the statute. | The court cited Bowen to support that areas maintained and used by the public, even if not open at all times, may qualify as "public vehicular areas." |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the statutory definition of "public vehicular area" in N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32), which includes areas generally open to and used by the public, such as parking lots on grounds of parks maintained by governmental subdivisions. Although the park was generally closed to vehicles, the evidence showed that for special events, such as the Trent River raft race, the city designated portions of the park as parking areas legally open to the public. The court emphasized the legislative intent behind the impaired driving statutes—to protect persons in such areas from impaired drivers—and rejected a narrow interpretation that would exclude temporarily opened parking areas. Applying the principle from State v. Spencer, the court construed the statute to avoid defeating its protective purpose. The court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the offense occurred in a "public vehicular area" and affirmed the denial of the defendant's motions to dismiss and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Holding and Implications
No error. The court held that the portion of Bicentennial Park legally used as a parking lot during a public event qualified as a "public vehicular area" under N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32), and thus the evidence was sufficient to uphold the impaired driving conviction.
The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the defendant's conviction and sentence. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent beyond confirming the applicability of the statutory definition to temporarily designated parking areas in public parks.
Automobiles 122 — driving while impaired — park as public vehicular area Where defendant allegedly drove while impaired in a park maintained and supported by a city and county, evidence permitted a finding that at the time in question, the portion of the park grounds legally in use as a parking lot for attendees at a river race was a "public vehicular area" within the meaning of N.C.G.S. 20-4.01 (32).
WHICHARD, Judge.
Defendant's sole contention is that the court erred in denying her motions to dismiss and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The basis of the contention is that the State's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to permit a finding that the offense occurred upon a "public vehicular area" as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32). We disagree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-138.1 (a) provides: A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State:
(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or
(2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.
N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32) defines "public vehicular area," as used in Chapter 20 of the General Statutes, in pertinent part as follows:
Any area within the State of North Carolina that is generally open to and used by the public, including by way of illustration and not limitation any drive, driveway, road, roadway, street, alley, or parking lot upon the grounds and premises of:
a. Any public or private hospital, college, university, school, orphanage, church, or any of the institutions, parks or other facilities maintained and supported by the State of North Carolina or any of its subdivisions[.]
It further provides: "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 as to the locale of the alleged offense here, and the use of the locale at the time, was as follows:
The Bicentennial Park is located in the city of New Bern in Craven County. On the date in question the city and county each owned a portion of the park.
Generally, the park is used as a recreation area and is closed to motor vehicles. Signs at the entrances state: "[N]o parking on the grass, no vehicles allowed."
On the occasion of special events, however, the city "identif[ies] a parking area out on the grass portion of the park" in order to "have better traffic control." There are usually ten to fifteen special events per year during which the city "allows people to come out and use the park and park out there."
The Trent River raft race, which took place on the date of defendant's alleged offense, was one such event. At least 200 vehicles were legally parked in the park for this event. Approximately fifty were still parked there when defendant backed her car into another vehicle while on the portion of the park grounds legally in use as a parking lot.
Defendant argues that the park grounds cannot be a "public vehicular area" because the uncontroverted evidence establishes that they are not "generally open to and used by the public." N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32) (emphasis supplied). In construing this statutory language "we are guided by the primary rule that the intent of the legislature controls." State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 546, 173 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1970). The statutory definition of "public vehicular area" includes, by way of illustration, "any . . . parking lot upon the grounds and premises of . . . [a]ny parks . . . maintained and supported by the State . . . or any of its subdivisions." N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32). It is undisputed that the area in question was upon the grounds of a park maintained and supported by the city of New Bern and the county of Craven, which are subdivisions of the State. It is equally undisputed that at the time in question the area was legally in use as a parking lot for a special event, and that it generally was so used on the occasion of such events.
We believe the legislature, in the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stats. 20-138.1 and 20-4.01 (32), clearly intended to protect persons in areas such as that in question from the dangers posed by others who drive there while impaired. Adoption of the construction of "public vehicular area" for which defendant contends would be counter to that legislative purpose, and "[a] construction which will operate to defeat or impair the object of the statute must be avoided if that can reasonably be done without violence to the legislative language." Spencer, 276 N.C. at 546, 173 S.E.2d at 773.
We therefore hold that the evidence permitted a finding that at the time in question the portion of the Bicentennial Park grounds legally in use as a parking lot was a "public vehicular area" within the meaning and intent of that phrase as used in N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32). See State v. Bowen, 67 N.C. App. 512, 313 S.E.2d 196, appeal dismissed, 312 N.C. 79, 320 S.E.2d 405 (1984) (evidence sufficient to permit inference that driveway to condominium complex was a "public vehicular area" as that phrase was defined in prior version of N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-4.01 (32)). The court thus correctly denied defendant's motions to dismiss and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
No error.
Judges BECTON and PARKER concur.
Alert