State v. Lathrop, 164 N.H. 468

The defendant, Alan Lathrop, challenges his DWI conviction following a bench trial in the Ossipee District Division.
The September 2010 incident occurred on Alderberry Lane when he failed to enter his driveway, drove off the road, and was later observed intoxicated.
Lathrop challenged whether Alderberry Lane is a “way” under RSA 259:125 II for the DWI statute.
Alderberry Lane lies within a private lake-community (Wildwood on Winnipesaukee) with signs stating private road access for members, guests, and invitees only.
There is no physical barrier to entry on Alderberry Lane, yet signage marks it private, raising ambiguity about “open for public use.”
The court held the statute ambiguous, concluded the road is open for public use despite its private character, and upheld the trial court’s determination that Alderberry Lane is a “way” for DWI purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alderberry Lane is a 'way' under RSA 259:125 II.	Lathrop contends the road is private and not open for public use.	State argues the road is open for public use because there is no barrier to entry.	Alderberry Lane is a 'way' for DWI purposes.

State v. Brooks, 164 N.H. 272 (2012) (statutory interpretation; legislative intent guides ambiguity)
State v. Moussa, 164 N.H. 108 (2012) (analysis of ambiguous statutory language)
Appeal of Coastal Materials Corp., 130 N.H. 98 (1987) (addressing statutory interpretation and public safety considerations)
Union Leader Corp. v. N.H. Retirement Sys., 162 N.H. 673 (2011) (use of legislative history to interpret ambiguous text)
Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737 (2007) (use of legislative history when language is ambiguous)