State v. Tarr
235 Ariz. 288
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Officers observed Tarr seated in the driver’s seat of a parked car with the engine running; he exhibited signs of intoxication and was arrested after failing field sobriety testing and refusing others. A blood test showed a .224% BAC.
- Tarr testified he had started the engine to heat the car and sleep after a domestic dispute because no indoor sleeping space was available.
- Tarr was convicted on four counts charging driving or being in "actual physical control" of a vehicle while under the influence or with a prohibited BAC.
- Tarr requested jury instructions (a Modified Instruction and a Special Instruction) expressly stating that using a vehicle as a "stationary shelter" is not actual physical control; the trial court refused and instead gave the Arizona Supreme Court–recommended Zaragoza instruction (which omits explicit "shelter" language but requires consideration of the totality of circumstances and imminent control).
- Tarr appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not giving his requested instructions; the court reviewed whether the given instruction adequately covered the shelter defense and whether refusal was reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person using a vehicle as a stationary shelter can be guilty of "actual physical control" for DUI | State: Zaragoza instruction correctly states law; courts should stick to the recommended instruction | Tarr: an intoxicated person may lawfully use a vehicle as a stationary shelter and such use should be an available jury instruction | Court: An intoxicated person may use a vehicle as a shelter and not be in actual physical control, but the Zaragoza instruction adequately captures that inquiry under the totality of circumstances |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing Tarr’s proposed "shelter" instructions | State: no error; Zaragoza instruction suffices and trial court may decline supplements | Tarr: his requested instructions were correct statements of law and necessary to present his defense | Court: Tarr’s proposed instructions were legally correct but unnecessary because the Given Instruction, read with closing argument, adequately covered the shelter defense |
| Whether the requested instructions were an improper comment on the evidence | State: proposed wording risked commenting on evidence | Tarr: instructions merely guided jury on legal standard | Court: Requested instructions did not comment on evidence; nonetheless refusal was not reversible because the law was adequately conveyed |
| Whether "imminent control" language is vague or requires inquiry into intent | Tarr: "imminent control" implies intent and is incoherent with Zaragoza’s prohibition on asking purpose | State: Zaragoza separates purpose from control; "imminent control" is an objective inquiry | Court: Zaragoza does not prohibit considering state of mind relevant to pulling off the road; imminent control is an objective factor and not unconstitutionally vague |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49 (recommended actual-physical-control instruction and totality-of-circumstances approach)
- State v. Love, 182 Ariz. 324 (holding use of a vehicle as a stationary shelter can negate actual physical control)
- State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193 (prohibiting judicial comments that express an opinion on the evidence)