Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog
In Ohio, there is a difference between a ‘vehicle’ and a ‘motor vehicle’. In cases of Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault, the difference matters. The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided an Aggravated Vehicular Assault case in which the defendant’s guilt hinged on the definition of ‘motor vehicle’. The Court’s decision affects both vehicular assault and vehicular homicide cases.
Elements of Vehicular Offenses
In Ohio, vehicular offenses are comprised of elements. Elements are similar to recipe ingredients in a cake. For the dessert to be the cake described in the recipe, it must have all the ingredients in the recipe. For a person to be found guilty of an offense, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense. Most offense elements are defined in the Ohio Revised Code.
Two Definitions of ‘Motor Vehicle’
One element in vehicular offenses is the type of device being operated by the defendant. For example, in cases of OVI (Operating a Vehicle under the Influence), the prosecution must prove the defendant operated a ‘vehicle’. In Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault cases, however, the prosecution must prove the defendant operated a ‘motor vehicle’.
‘Motor Vehicle’ has two definitions. The first definition, found in Ohio Revised Code section 4501.01(B), defines ‘motor vehicle’ as, “any vehicle, including mobile homes and recreational vehicles, that is propelled or drawn by power other than muscular power or power collected from overhead electric trolley wires. ” The definition in that code section has an exception for ‘utility vehicle’: a ‘utility vehicle’ is not a ‘motor vehicle’. The second definition, found in Ohio Revised Code section 4511.01(B), is the same as the first definition but does not have an exception for ‘utility vehicle’. So, under the second code section, a ‘utility vehicle’ is a ‘motor vehicle’.
Which Definition Applies?
The difference between the two definitions was addressed in the recent case of State v. Fork. In that case, the defendant was operating a Polaris Ranger under the influence and crashed. As a result of the crash, two passengers suffered serious physical harm. The defendant was convicted of two counts of Aggravated Vehicular Assault.
The defendant appealed, and the case was ultimately decided by the Ohio Supreme Court. The defendant claimed the judge used the wrong definition of ‘motor vehicle’ because the judge used the definition which does not have an exception for ‘utility vehicles’. The defendant further claimed that, if the judge had used the correct definition of ‘motor vehicle’, the defendant could not have been found guilty because the Polaris Ranger was a ‘utility vehicle’ and therefore not a ‘motor vehicle’.
The Wrong Definition was Used
The Ohio Supreme Court concluded the judge used the wrong definition of ‘motor vehicle’. The definition used by the judge, without the exception for ‘utility vehicle’, only applies to Chapters 4511 and 4513 of the Ohio Revised Code. The defendant was not charged with an offense in Chapter 4511 or 4513. He was charged Aggravated Vehicular Assault, which is found in in Chapter 2903. Accordingly, the judge should have used the definition with the exception for ‘utility vehicles’. That definition applies to “the penal laws”, and Aggravated Vehicular Assault is a ‘penal law’.
But Was it a ‘Utility Vehicle’?
After deciding which definition applied, the Court still had to decide whether the Polaris Ranger was a ‘utility vehicle’. According to Ohio Revised Code section 4501.01(VV), a ‘utility vehicle’ is “a self-propelled vehicle designed with a bed, principally for the purpose of transporting material or cargo in connection with construction, agricultural, forestry, grounds maintenance, lawn and garden, materials handling, or similar activities.” The prosecution argued the Polaris Ranger was not a ‘utility vehicle’ because it was not being used for the defined purposes at the time of the crash.
The Court stated the definition of ‘utility vehicle’ is determined by the principal purpose of the vehicle and not how the vehicle was being used at the time of the crash. Therefore, because the principal purpose of the Polaris Ranger was “transporting material or cargo in connection with construction, agricultural, forestry, grounds maintenance, lawn and garden, materials handling, or similar activities”, the Polaris Ranger was a ‘utility vehicle’. Consequently, the defendant could not be convicted of Aggravated Vehicular Assault.
The Impact of the Court’s Decision
Although the Fork case involved allegations of Aggravated Vehicular Assault, the Court’s decision affects all types of vehicular assault, as well as all types of vehicular homicide, in which the defendant operates a utility vehicle. A surprisingly high number of Vehicular Assault and Vehicular Homicide cases involve utility vehicles.