State v. St. Pierre

549 A.2d 1090, 17 Conn. App. 100, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 440
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1988
Docket6643
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 549 A.2d 1090 (State v. St. Pierre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. St. Pierre, 549 A.2d 1090, 17 Conn. App. 100, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 440 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Stoughton, J.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of operating a motor [101]*101vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a).1 The state, with the permission of the presiding judge, has appealed. We find error.

The parties agree that on July 9, 1987, the defendant was arrested in a parking lot at a 7-Eleven store in Vernon and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that “jsjection 14-227a prohibits the operation of motor vehicles in parking lots for more than ten vehicles which are ‘open to public use’ . . . .” The defendant relied on this court’s opinion in State v. Boucher, 11 Conn. App. 644, 528 A.2d 1165 (1987), in which we agreed with the trial court that a parking lot used exclusively by Midas Muffler employees and customers was not “open to public use” as that term is used in General Statutes § 14-212 (5).2

Our holding in State v. Boucher, supra, was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to reinstate [102]*102the information. State v. Boucher, 207 Conn. 612, 619, 541 A.2d 865 (1988). The Supreme Court held that “[a] place is ‘public’ to which the public is invited either expressly or by implication to come for the purpose of trading or transacting business.” Id., 616. It concluded that the legislature, in enacting §§ 14-227a and 14-212 (5), intended to extend the prohibition against operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to any parking area for ten or more cars which “the public” is invited or permitted to use. Id., 619. This conclusion is dispositive of this appeal.

The defendant suggests that the parking area in front of the 7-Eleven store was for six vehicles and separate from the balance of the parking area, and therefore that the rationale of the Supreme Court in State v. Boucher, supra, is not applicable to this case. Aside from the fact that he did not present this as an alternate ground for sustaining the decision of the trial court, see Practice Book § 4013 (a) (1), the facts upon which this claim is based have not yet been presented to and determined by the trial court.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to reinstate the information charging the defendant with a violation of § 14-227a (a) and to proceed according to law.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Diamond v. Diamond
631 A.2d 1157 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. Pellechia
624 A.2d 395 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)
Eubanks v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, No. 0058429 (Mar. 1, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2211 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
549 A.2d 1090, 17 Conn. App. 100, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-st-pierre-connappct-1988.