State v. Martin

776 P.2d 1383, 55 Wash. App. 275, 1989 Wash. App. LEXIS 257
Court of Appeals of Washington·Decided August 14, 1989·No. Nos. 21935-9-I; 22277-5-I·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Winsor, J.

Timothy J. Martin appeals from a judgment and sentence for violating RCW 9A.56.070, the taking a motor vehicle without permission statute. Martin, who took a motorboat without the owner's permission, contends that the statute does not apply to his acts. We reverse and dismiss.

[276] Martin argues that he was improperly charged and the charges against him must be dismissed, because a motorboat is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of RCW 9A.56.070.1 The State essentially responds that because a motorboat is a vehicle with a motor, it is a motor vehicle for purposes of the statute. We disagree.

The Washington Criminal Code, RCW Title 9A, implies that as used therein, motor vehicle refers to land-based transportation. Although the criminal code does not define motor vehicle, it does contain a definition of vehicle which is of assistance. Now codified at RCW 9A.04.110(26), it provides that a vehicle is "a 'motor vehicle' as defined in the vehicle and traffic laws, any aircraft, or any vessel equipped for propulsion by mechanical means or by sail". Use of the disjunctive "or" between '"motor vehicle' as defined in the vehicle and traffic laws" and "vessel", suggests that as used in RCW Title 9A, motor vehicle is a term of art referencing only those motorized vehicles within the purview of the vehicle and traffic laws. The vehicle and traffic laws concern only land-based transportation.2

More importantly, we do not believe that motor vehicle is commonly understood as including motorboats. The ordinary meaning of motor vehicle is "an automotive vehicle not operated on rails; [particularly] one with rubber [277] tires for use on highways". Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1476 (1971). Motor vessel is a different term which is separately defined and has its own, distinct ordinary meaning. Webster's. To construe RCW 9A.56.070 as encompassing Martin's acts would therefore violate the rule that undefined, unambiguous words within a statute must be given their ordinary meaning.3

We also note that in other legal contexts, common understandings limit application of motor vehicle to land-based vehicles. For example, one legal authority generalizes that "the term 'motor vehicle' ordinarily means a vehicle which is self-propelled, being commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway". 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 1(b) (1969). Texas courts hold that a motorboat is not a motor vehicle for purposes of the Texas involuntary manslaughter statute, because:

It would seem apparent . . . that the common usage of the term "motor vehicle" relates to a conveyance used on land and the term "motorboat" relates to a conveyance used on or in the water.

Williams v. State, 698 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985), aff'd, 725 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).4 Finally, courts uniformly interpret motor vehicle guest statutes as applying only to vehicles operated on land. See generally Annot., What Is "Motor Vehicle" Within Automobile Guest Statute, 98 A.L.R.2d 543 (1964).

[278] We conclude that Martin was improperly charged under RCW 9A.56.070. His judgment and sentence are therefore reversed, and the charges dismissed. In an argument to which the State did not respond, Martin also contends that he cannot be recharged with another offense based on the same conduct. State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 491, 745 P.2d 854 (1987); CrR 4.3(c). We agree. The State is therefore barred from further prosecution in this matter.

Coleman, C.J., and Forrest, J., concur.

Review denied at 113 Wn.2d 1033 (1989).

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Martin, 776 P.2d 1383, 55 Wash. App. 275, 1989 Wash. App. LEXIS 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).

776 P.2d 1383 (State v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hatfield v. STATE, DEPT. OF LICENSING
947 P.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1997)
State v. Anderson
791 P.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1990)