This is a case of first impression in the State of Louisiana. The defendant has been convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in that he rode a horse on Louisiana Highway #100 while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The defendant was riding a horse on La. Hwy. #100, one and one-tenth mile west of Crowley on the evening of March 29, 1983 when he was involved in an accident with an automobile. After investigating the accident, police officers administered a P.E.I. test to the defendant and determined that he had a blood alcohol concentration of.12 percent. Defendant was convicted of the offense of O.W.I. in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:98. LSA-R.S. 14:98 provides in pertinent part:

"The crime of operating a vehicle while intoxicated is the operating of any motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel or other means of conveyance while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbiturates. . . ."
State v. Williams, 449 So.2d 744 (La. App. 1984).

Appeals courts review for errors of law. Was the state statute correctly interpreted by the lower court? Should his conviction be overturned? Is a horse an "other means of conveyance" under the statute? Use the following guiding principles and precedent to write an appellate court decision that interprets Louisiana statute based on the facts that were found by the trial court, i.e., that the defendant was drunk when he rode his horse on highway 100.

Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused. In other words, defendants should not be convicted of conduct that is only "arguably" a crime.
Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language.
Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated.
When a statute is ambiguous or subject to two reasonable interpretations, the court can inquire into legislative aim and design for the purpose of determining legislative intent.

This precedent also exists under Louisiana law:
State v. Hightower, 238 La. 876, 116 So.2d 699 (1959).
". . . a person is intoxicated within the provisions of the statute [R.S. 14:98] when he does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of alcoholic beverages (or narcotics), thus rendering such person incapable of operating an automobile in a manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious man in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would operate a motor vehicle under like conditions."

Question

This is a case of first impression in the State of Louisiana. The defendant has been   convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in that he rode a horse on Louisiana  Highway #100 while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The defendant was  riding a horse on La. Hwy. #100, one and one-tenth mile west of Crowley on the evening  of March 29, 1983 when he was involved in an accident with an automobile. After  investigating the accident, police officers administered a P.E.I. test to the defendant and  determined that he had a blood  alcohol concentration of.12 percent. Defendant was  convicted of the offense of O.W.I. in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:98. LSA-R.S. 14:98  provides in pertinent part: 
 
 ​ 
 "The crime of operating a vehicle while intoxicated is the operating of any motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel or other means of conveyance while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbiturates. . . ." 
 State v. Williams, 449 So.2d 744 (La. App. 1984). 
 ​ 
 Appeals courts review for errors of law. Was the state statute correctly interpreted by the lower court? Should his conviction be overturned? Is a horse an "other means of conveyance" under the statute? Use the following guiding principles and precedent to write an appellate court decision that interprets Louisiana statute based on the facts that were found by the trial court, i.e., that the defendant was drunk when he rode his horse on highway 100.   
 
 Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused. In other words, defendants should not be convicted of conduct that is only "arguably" a crime. 
 Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. 
 Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated. 
 When a statute is ambiguous or subject to two reasonable interpretations, the court can inquire into legislative aim and design for the purpose of determining legislative intent. 
 
 This precedent also exists under Louisiana law: 
  State v. Hightower, 238 La. 876, 116 So.2d 699 (1959). 
 ". . . a person is intoxicated within the provisions of the statute [R.S. 14:98] when he does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of alcoholic beverages (or narcotics), thus rendering such person incapable of operating an automobile in a manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious man in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would operate a motor vehicle under like conditions."

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of This is a case of first impression in the State of Louisiana. The defendant has been   convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in that he rode a horse on Louisiana  Highway #100 while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The defendant was  riding a horse on La. Hwy. #100, one and one-tenth mile west of Crowley on the evening  of March 29, 1983 when he was involved in an accident with an automobile. After  investigating the accident, police officers administered a P.E.I. test to the defendant and  determined that he had a blood  alcohol concentration of.12 percent. Defendant was  convicted of the offense of O.W.I. in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:98. LSA-R.S. 14:98  provides in pertinent part: 
 
 ​ 
 "The crime of operating a vehicle while intoxicated is the operating of any motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel or other means of conveyance while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbiturates. . . ." 
 State v. Williams, 449 So.2d 744 (La. App. 1984). 
 ​ 
 Appeals courts review for errors of law. Was the state statute correctly interpreted by the lower court? Should his conviction be overturned? Is a horse an "other means of conveyance" under the statute? Use the following guiding principles and precedent to write an appellate court decision that interprets Louisiana statute based on the facts that were found by the trial court, i.e., that the defendant was drunk when he rode his horse on highway 100.   
 
 Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused. In other words, defendants should not be convicted of conduct that is only "arguably" a crime. 
 Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. 
 Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated. 
 When a statute is ambiguous or subject to two reasonable interpretations, the court can inquire into legislative aim and design for the purpose of determining legislative intent. 
 
 This precedent also exists under Louisiana law: 
  State v. Hightower, 238 La. 876, 116 So.2d 699 (1959). 
 ". . . a person is intoxicated within the provisions of the statute [R.S. 14:98] when he does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of alcoholic beverages (or narcotics), thus rendering such person incapable of operating an automobile in a manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious man in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would operate a motor vehicle under like conditions."

This Is a Case of First Impression in the State