State v. Luke P. Peters, 172 A.3d 156

On Aug. 6, 2014, Luke P. Peters (defendant) and others consumed alcohol; while a passenger in the back seat of a moving car, Peters jumped forward, grabbed the steering wheel, turned it, and caused the vehicle to leave the road and roll over, injuring two minors.
Peters was charged in Superior Court with assault with a dangerous weapon; DUI resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 31-27-2.6); driving so as to endanger resulting in serious and nonserious bodily injury (§ 31-27-1.2); contributing to the delinquency of a minor; and driving with a revoked license (§ 31-11-18).
A magistrate found probable cause to charge Peters with “operating” the vehicle; on appeal to a Superior Court justice, the judge concluded that tugging the wheel was not enough to constitute driving or operating under the cited statutes and granted a Rule 9.1 motion to dismiss counts 1–4 and 6.
The State appealed the dismissals of counts charging violations of §§ 31-27-2.6, 31-27-1.2, and 31-11-18.
The Supreme Court examined statutory definitions in G.L. 1956 § 31-1-17 (defining “driver” and “operator”) and the statutory scheme of chapter 27 to decide whether a passenger’s forcible grabbing/turning of the wheel can constitute "operating" or "driving."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Peters)	Held
Whether a passenger who forcibly seizes the steering wheel of a moving vehicle can be deemed an "operator"/"driver" under §§ 31-27-1.2, 31-27-2.6, and 31-11-18	Grabbing and steering the wheel is actual physical control and therefore falls within the statutory definitions of operator/driver; supports prosecution under the cited statutes	Post-amendment readings and Capuano show the Legislature removed "actual physical control" from § 31-27-2(a) to require more than momentary or passive possession; momentary tugging is insufficient	Held for the State: forcible grabbing/steering of a moving vehicle can constitute "operating" under § 31-1-17 and supports prosecution under the cited statutes

State v. Reed, 764 A.2d 144 (discussing probable-cause review on a Rule 9.1 motion) (procedural standard)
State v. Aponte, 649 A.2d 219 (probable-cause standard for info dismissal) (procedural standard)
State v. Young, 941 A.2d 124 (trial justice must construe info package for probable cause; afford State inferences) (procedural standard)
State v. Capuano, 591 A.2d 35 (interpreting deletion of "actual physical control" from DUI statute; mere possession or idling not operating) (distinguished)
State v. Morris, 666 A.2d 419 (operation requires setting vehicle in motion; turning ignition on constituted operation) (distinguished)
People v. Yamat, 714 N.W.2d 335 (grabbing/turning steering wheel causing vehicle to veer is operating) (persuasive out-of-state authority)
State v. Rivera, 83 P.3d 69 (passenger grabbing wheel assumed actual physical control for DUI) (persuasive out-of-state authority)