Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010

Driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or over is not a lesser-included offense of driving while intoxicated under § 577.010.

State v. Jackson · filed 1982-10-19

It is settled that the offense of driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or over is not a lesser-included offense of driving while intoxicated.

Section 577.010.1 makes driving while intoxicated a lesser included offense of second-degree assault based on intoxicated driving that causes injury through criminal negligence.

Rost v. State · filed 1996-04-26(1)

Applying § 556.046.1(1), quoted above, we hold the offense of driving while intoxicated, as proscribed by § 577.010.1, is included in the offense of assault in the second degree, as proscribed by § 565.060.1(4), in that the commission of driving while intoxicated is established by proof of the same, but fewer than all of, the facts required to establish the commission of assault in the second degree.

Driving while intoxicated is a lesser included offense of second degree assault under § 565.060.1(4), so a defendant cannot be convicted of both for the same conduct.

State v. Karr · filed 1998-04-28(1)

An individual may not be convicted of both driving while intoxicated and assault in the second degree pursuant to § 565.060.1(4) because driving while intoxicated is a lesser included offense of the method of second degree assault criminalized by that statute.

Section 577.010 makes driving while intoxicated a class B misdemeanor when qualifying prior offenses do not support an enhanced sentence.

State of Missouri v. Nowicki · filed 2023-02-07(2)

Because the only IRTO that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt occurred more than five years before the occurrence of Nowicki's present offense on March 21, 2019, Nowicki's present offense of driving while intoxicated is a class B misdemeanor that is not eligible for enhancement. See section 577.010.2(1), (2).

Section 577.010.2 classifies a first driving while intoxicated offense as a class B misdemeanor, but section 577.023 changes the charged offense to a class B felony when the defendant has four or more prior intoxication-related traffic offenses.

State v. Horn · filed 2012-09-18(2)

In accordance with the plain language of sections 577.010.2 and 577.023, we hold that when a defendant like Horn is charged with having been convicted of four or more prior intoxication-related traffic offenses, the classification of the underlying charged offense for driving while intoxicated is changed from a class B misdemeanor to a class B felony.

Under the 1982 version of § 577.010, driving while intoxicated is a class B misdemeanor when the prior offenses do not qualify it as a felony.

State v. Newkirk · filed 1984-08-21

We therefore hold that the circuit court erred in sentencing the defendant as a felon because the 1982 amendments were applicable at the time that he pled guilty. The proper charge would have been driving while intoxicated, a class B misdemeanor under § 577.010, RSMo (Supp.1982).

A 48-hour jail term and a $150 fine fall within the punishment range for a first driving while intoxicated offense under § 577.010.2.

State v. Wimberly · filed 1985-10-31(2)

He was sentenced to Pemiscot County jail for 48 hours and fined $150. ... The sentence was fixed by the court. It is within the range of punishment for a first offense driving while intoxicated. §§ 577.010.2, 558.011.1(5), RSMo Supp. 1984, and 560.016, RSMo 1978.

A first driving while intoxicated offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars, imprisonment for up to six months, or both.

State v. Petterson · filed 1989-11-07(2)

Appellant was charged with violating § 577.010 RSMo 1986, driving while intoxicated. Under the statute, the offense is a misdemeanor for a first time offender punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars and/or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months.

Driving while intoxicated under § 577.010 is a class B misdemeanor when prior or persistent offender status is not established.

State v. Briegel · filed 1994-11-08

This left only driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo1986, which was a class B misdemeanor.

Section 577.010 provides for a class B misdemeanor driving while intoxicated conviction when persistent offender status is not established.

State v. Rose · filed 2005-08-09

Therefore, at most, Defendant may only be sentenced for the class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated under Section 577.010, RSMo 2000, and Section 558.011.1(6), RSMo Cum.Supp.2004.

Driving while intoxicated is a class B misdemeanor and a criminal offense under Missouri law.

United States v. Doyle · filed 2001-01-26(2)

"Driving while intoxicated" for which Doyle was convicted is considered a state criminal offense. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010.2 (driving while intoxicated is a class B misdemeanor).

Circumstantial evidence that a driver’s behavior was consistent with the effects of inhaled gasoline can support an inference of drug impairment under the driving while intoxicated statute.

State of Missouri v. Schwarz · filed 2024-09-24(1)

From all of this evidence, a reasonable inference could be made that Schwarz was impaired from the ingestion of gasoline even without Corporal R.H.’s specific conclusion.

Section 577.010 requires proof that the defendant was intoxicated while driving; circumstantial evidence can establish that connection.

State of Missouri v. Rastorfer · filed 2019-02-26

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence in this case to establish the required temporal connection between Rastorfer’s admitted driving, and his admitted intoxication.

Section 577.010 requires evidence connecting the defendant’s intoxication to the time the defendant drove.

State v. Hatfield · filed 2011-08-30(1)

Thus, to sustain a DWI conviction the State must establish, through direct or circumstantial evidence, the temporal connection between the defendant’s last operation of a motor vehicle and his observed intoxication. Such evidence is lacking here.

Section 577.010.1 does not require a blood alcohol test to prove driving while intoxicated; other evidence can establish intoxication.

State of Missouri v. Mattix · filed 2016-03-081

As stated above, while a blood alcohol test revealing a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08 would supply ample proof to meet the requirements of the statute, such a scientific test is unnecessary for a jury to convict.

Evidence apart from an officer’s challenged drug-recognition opinion can support a conviction for driving while drugged under § 577.010.1.

State v. SAVICK · filed 2011-08-181

Excluding Gooden’s challenged opinion that Defendant was under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant, there was abundant evidence demonstrating both the presence of a drug in Defendant’s body and Defendant’s impaired driving ability due to that drag.

Section 577.010.1 allows a jury to infer intoxication while driving when the defendant is found severely intoxicated shortly after being seen driving.

State v. Wilson · filed 2011-07-12(1)

Thus, to obtain a conviction for DWI, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) operated a vehicle; (2) while intoxicated. ... Here, where Defendant was found so drunk that he was barely conscious just 30 minutes after he had been seen driving, the jury could reasonably infer that he had been drunk at the time he drove.

Section 577.010 is satisfied by intoxication that impairs a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle in any manner.

State v. Armistead · filed 1983-08-02

Further, under § 577.010 RSMo 1978, “any intoxication that in any manner impairs the ability of a person to operate [a motor vehicle] is sufficient.”

Section 577.010.1 permits a charge of driving while drugged, but the State must present evidence that the driver was in a drugged condition.

State v. Valerius · filed 1984-06-26(1)

Nor has the state shown that defendant was in a drugged condition, the alternative charge under § 577.010.1 RSMo 1978. The police report indicates that no drugs or paraphernalia were found, and defendant did not have needle marks or scabs.

Section 577.010 requires sufficient evidence that the defendant was intoxicated when driving.

State v. Wolf · filed 1987-04-14

There is considerable evidence appellant was intoxicated at the time of arrest and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, sufficient evidence to find appellant was intoxicated at the time he was driving.

Section 577.010 permits intoxication while driving to be proved by evidence of intoxication shortly after an accident when the timing and lack of access to alcohol support that inference.

State v. Waelterman · filed 1987-07-21

There is little question but that defendant was driving while intoxicated within the meaning of § 577.010, RSMo 1986.

Section 577.010 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Liebhart · filed 1986-02-04

In order to establish a violation of § 577.010 (formerly § 464.440), the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while he was intoxicated. ... There was uncontroverted evidence that appellant was intoxicated when the officer arrived, and that he had no access to intoxicants after that time, however, the state has failed to prove, as it must in order to sustain the conviction, that appellant was intoxicated at the time he was operating the vehicle.

Section 577.010 allows intoxication to be proved by a witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe the driver; chemical test results are not required.

State v. Ruark · filed 1986-12-02

In this connection, it is to be noted that notwithstanding the General Assembly’s propensity to restate, recodify and complicate the offense of drunken driving, it has been unlawful in this State to operate a motor vehicle “while in an intoxicated condition” since 1911, Laws of Mo. 1911, § 12, p. 329, and under the present statute — § 577.010 — the State is not required to produce results of chemical tests to prove intoxication. Intoxication sufficient to sustain a conviction may be proved by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe the alleged offender.

Erratic driving, slurred speech, an unsteady walk, and the odor of alcohol can sufficiently prove intoxication under § 577.010.

State v. Spain · filed 1988-11-01

Here, the arresting officer testified that defendant drove on the wrong side of the street, failed to heed two stop signs, had slurred speech, an unsteady walk and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. This was more than sufficient evidence to support a finding of intoxication.

Section 577.010 requires evidence linking the defendant to driving a vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Avellone · filed 1990-06-29

The evidence was more than sufficient to show defendant was driving a vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

Section 577.010 requires only enough intoxication to impair a person's ability to operate a car in any manner.

City of Kansas City v. Johnston · filed 1989-07-18

“Any intoxication that in any manner impairs the ability of a person to operate an automobile is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the statute in question,” now Section 577.010, RSMo 1986.

Section 577.010 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Keller · filed 1990-05-01

In order to establish a violation of Section 577.010, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the defendant operated a motor vehicle; and 2) that he operated the motor vehicle while intoxicated. ... In the case at bar, there was sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant was intoxicated while he was operating a motor vehicle.

Section 577.010.1 requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated; intoxication at a later arrest alone does not establish intoxication while driving.

State v. Block · filed 1990-10-30(1)

The elements of the offense charged herein are: (1) that [Block] operated a motor vehicle; and (2) that he was intoxicated while doing so. § 577.010.1, RSMo 1986. Proof of intoxication at the time of arrest, when remote from the operation of the vehicle, is insufficient in itself to prove intoxication at the time the person was driving.

Section 577.010.1 prohibits operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged, and intoxication may be proved through witness observations without chemical test results.

State v. Williams · filed 1992-11-24(1)

A person commits the crime of driving while intoxicated if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. § 577.010.1, RSMo 1986. The state is not required to produce results of chemical tests to prove intoxication. Intoxication sufficient to sustain a conviction can be proved by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe an alleged offender.

Section 577.010(1) prohibits operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and the State need not produce a chemical test to prove intoxication.

State v. McCarty · filed 1994-05-06(1)

A person commits the crime of driving while intoxicated if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. § 577.010.1. The State is not required to produce results of a chemical test to prove intoxication. ... The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that Defendant was guilty.

Section 577.010 permits a driving while intoxicated conviction when intoxication impairs a person’s ability to operate a car in any manner; a witness who reasonably observed the driver may prove intoxication.

State v. Wilson · filed 1993-02-17

Applying the rule, discussed supra, that intoxication sufficient to sustain a conviction of driving while intoxicated may be proved by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe the accused, we hold Hutchison’s testimony constituted sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have reasonably found Defendant guilty.

For a § 577.010 charge, an intoxicated-condition instruction may include alcohol, controlled substances, drugs, or their combinations when the defendant raises drug intoxication, even if the information alleges alcohol.

State v. Stamps · filed 1993-11-16

Appellant cannot now claim that the instruction given by the state defining intoxication as induced by alcohol, a controlled substance, drugs, or any combination thereof represented a new charge. Further, appellant’s defense was that he was involuntarily intoxicated due to his ingestion of prescription drugs. Thus, he defended himself against the charge of willfully driving while intoxicated with alcohol, a controlled substance, drugs, or in any combination thereof, and was not prejudiced by the variation. We hold the trial court did not plainly err in submitting the instruction defining intoxicated condition to the jury.

Section 577.010.1 prohibits operating a motor vehicle while a drug impairs the driver's ability to operate it in any manner.

State v. Falcone · filed 1996-03-05(1)

Applying Raines and Cox, we hold that if Appellant was under the influence of Lorazepam to the extent that it impaired her ability, in any manner, to operate her vehicle, she was in a drugged condition and consequently guilty of driving while intoxicated as proscribed by § 577.010.1.

Section 577.010.1 requires evidence connecting a driver’s impaired behavior to the ingested drug to prove driving in a drugged condition.

State v. Friend · filed 1997-03-18(1)

A person commits the class B misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated if he operates a motor vehicle while in a drugged condition. Section 577.010.1, RSMo 1994. ... With respect to our case, the decisive point is that the behavior, which evidences impaired judgment and motor skills, must be consistent with the symptoms of the ingested drug.

Section 577.010 treats intoxicated driving due to alcohol, drugs, or both as the same offense when involuntary intoxication is not at issue.

State v. Walter · filed 1996-03-261

The original version of Count I charged a violation of § 577.010 and so did the amended version. No additional or different offense was charged. Defendant offered no evidence that his condition of intoxication was involuntarily induced nor did he request an instruction on involuntary intoxication. Absent any issue of involuntariness, it made no legal difference whether his intoxication was due to alcohol, drugs, or a combination thereof.

Evidence that a driver was intoxicated shortly after a promptly reported accident can support an inference that the driver was intoxicated while driving.

State v. Johnson · filed 1997-10-07

The evidence supported an inference that defendant was intoxicated when he failed to make a curve and drove off the highway because the accident was promptly reported, and the officer arrived eleven minutes after the report and found defendant intoxicated.

Section 577.010 permits a driving while intoxicated conviction when an officer’s observations and sobriety tests provide substantial evidence of intoxication.

State v. Buckler · filed 1999-03-09

Donald Buckler appeals his conviction following jury trial for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo 1994. ... Substantial evidence was presented that Mr. Buckler was intoxicated when Sergeant Meyer stopped Mr. Buckler and confronted him, thereby supporting the finding that Mr. Buckler was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged.

Section 577.010.1 requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated, but does not require proof of a particular blood alcohol level.

State v. Cross · filed 2000-11-14.1

Section 577.010.1 requires proof only that a defendant "operate[d] a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition." It does not require a showing of any level of intoxication.

Section 577.010 prohibits operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated; a conviction can be supported by observational evidence without a blood alcohol measurement.

State v. Knifong · filed 2001-06-26

The elements of driving while intoxicated are contained within § 577.010, RSMo, which provides that “[a] person commits the crime of ‘driving while intoxicated’ if he operates a motor vehicle in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” ... Here, there is no evidence of Kni-fong’s actual blood alcohol level at the time she was stopped by officer Palmer. However, there was substantial evidence before the jury from which it could determine that Knifong was intoxicated at the time. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

Section 577.010 permits intoxication to be proved by the combined signs of impairment, even when multiple sclerosis may explain some of them.

State v. Bradley · filed 2001-10-01

Under § 577.010, a person commits the crime of driving while intoxicated if he “operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” § 577.010. ... However, we are of the opinion that the coincidence of these factors, even taking Defendant’s multiple sclerosis into consideration, is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was driving while intoxicated.

Section 577.010 permits a driving while intoxicated conviction based on physical evidence of impairment without a numerical blood alcohol measure.

State v. Adams · filed 2005-05-20

“An actual, numerical measure of blood alcohol content is not essential to the State’s case[ ]” in prosecuting a charge of driving while intoxicated.

Section 577.010.1 requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated; driving and intoxication at the time may be established through reasonable inferences from the evidence.

State v. Scholl · filed 2003-06-17(1)

“A person commits the crime of ‘driving while intoxicated’ if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” Section 577.010.1 RSMo 2000. ... There is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might have found Scholl guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while intoxicated.

A conviction under § 577.010 is supported when a reasonable juror could conclude from the evidence that the defendant drove while intoxicated.

State v. Gill · filed 2004-04-20

We find that a reasonable juror could conclude from the evidence that Gill drove the vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

Section 577.010.1 requires proof that a person operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged; observations soon after driving can support an inference of intoxication while driving.

State v. Hellweg · filed 2006-12-05(1)

The elements of driving while intoxicated are that a person (1) operated a motor vehicle (2) while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. ... There was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant drove his pickup while intoxicated.

Section 577.010 requires proof that the driver was intoxicated while driving; when a significant interval separates driving from observed intoxication, the State must offer specific evidence connecting the two.

State v. Byron · filed 2007-05-22

Generally, when there is a significant interval of time between the time of an accident and the time that the defendant is observed to be intoxicated, the prosecution must offer specific evidence that the defendant was intoxicated at the time the defendant was driving.

Section 577.010.1 permits a jury to infer that a person was intoxicated while driving from evidence of intoxication observed shortly afterward.

State v. Davis · filed 2007-07-03(1)

On the other hand, a brief lapse of time between a defendant’s driving and being seen in an intoxicated condition requires less exacting evidence of the defendant’s intoxication. ... Trooper White discovered Davis to be in an intoxicated state a mere 10 to 15 minutes after Butcher saw him driving. ... The prosecuting attorney presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

Section 577.010 requires proof that the defendant operated a vehicle and was intoxicated while doing so.

State v. Wilson · filed 2008-11-04

The charge against Wilson required proof that (1) he operated the vehicle and (2) was intoxicated while doing so.

Section 577.010.1 requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated; observations of impairment, field sobriety results, refusals, and an officer’s opinion can support a finding of intoxication.

State v. Edwards · filed 2009-04-14(1)

Accordingly, to support Defendant’s conviction, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was (1) operating a motor vehicle, (2) while intoxicated. ... This evidence, when viewed in its totality and in the light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient from which a reasonable juror could have found Defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated.

A conviction under section 577.010 can be supported by an officer’s observations, failed field sobriety tests, and refusal to take a breath test.

State v. Rotter · filed 1997-12-09

The trial judge was entitled to find, based on Officer Cook’s testimony, that Mr. Rotter refused to submit to a breath test and to consider this refusal as evidence of his intoxication. Additionally, Mr. Rotter was stopped due to his inability to maintain his vehicle on the right side of the roadway. Mr. Rotter smelled of alcohol and was unable to keep his balance when he exited his car. Mr. Rotter failed all three field sobriety tests administered by Officer Cook, and he then refused to submit to any more field sobriety tests. Officer Cook testified that he had arrested over fifty persons for DWI and that, in his opinion, Mr. Rotter was intoxicated. The evidence, therefore, was sufficient for the trial court to find that Mr. Rotter was guilty of DWI.

Section 577.010.1 permits a jury to find that a person operated a vehicle while intoxicated when the person sat behind the wheel with the engine running, regardless of how the engine was started.

State of Missouri v. Parrish · filed 2024-02-27(1)

Under the definition of “operate” applied in Cox and other cases, a defendant’s sitting behind the wheel with the engine running is sufficient for a jury to find the defendant operated the vehicle, without regard to precisely how he started the vehicle.

Section 577.010 requires operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a drug.

State v. Brown · filed 2018-05-25

Both the Missouri and the Nebraska statutory schemes effectively required that one ... operate a motor vehicle while “under the influence” of alcohol or a drug.

Section 577.010.1 covers physically driving or operating a vehicle while alcohol or drugs impair the ability to drive in any manner.

State of Missouri v. Shepherd · filed 2021-03-09(1)

Based on the preceding italicized words and pursuant to the reasoning in Ellmaker discussed in detail in the previous subsection, the trial court could have reasonably found the conduct giving rise to Defendant’s three Colorado convictions for driving while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs involved conduct sought to be deterred in Missouri’s DWI statute, i.e., involved conduct for physically driving or operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or drug, or any combination thereof in any manner impairing the ability of Defendant to operate an automobile.

Section 577.010(1) covers operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol even when the driver’s BAC is below .08 and the driver remains capable of safely driving.

State v. Patton · filed 2022-02-11(1)

A person can be under the influence of alcohol without having a BAC of .08 or more and without being under the influence to a degree that the person is incapable of safely driving. This element of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.010 is broader than the elements of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-1567.

Section 577.010 applies to intoxicated driving on privately maintained subdivision roads that are open to public travel.

State v. Gittemeier · filed 2013-05-14.1

This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the subdivision, while privately maintained, was open to the public. ... Because Gittemeier drove his ATV on a road open to the public, he created a “clear hazard to the traveling public.” ... Thus, the trial court did not err in sending this issue to the jury.

Section 577.010’s operation element is met when a person behind the wheel has actual physical control of a parked vehicle.

State v. O'Toole · filed 1984-07-17(1)

The evidence established that defendant was seated behind the wheel of his vehicle and that the car was engaged in “park.” He was in a position to regulate the vehicle’s movements, and was therefore “operating” the motor vehicle within the meaning of chapter 577, RSMo 1982.

Section 577.010 requires proof that someone operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged.

State v. Friesen · filed 1987-03-03

The corpus delicti of the offense with which defendant was charged requires proof that someone operated a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. § 577.010 R.S.Mo. (Cum.Supp. 1984). The record before us establishes that defendant was intoxicated but does not show, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or anyone else operated the truck while under the influence.

Section 577.010 treats a person as driving when the person has actual physical control of a running car, even while seated on the passenger side with the controls within easy reach.

Taylor v. McNeill · filed 1986-08-19

We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Taylor was in actual physical control of the car and that he was driving it within the meaning of § 577.010 when the officer arrived.

Section 577.010 requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Helm · filed 1988-05-17

To establish a violation of § 577.010, RSMo, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while he was intoxicated.

Section 577.010 covers actual physical control of a vehicle even when the driver is passed out, where the vehicle is partly in the road with its lights and ignition on.

State v. Williams · filed 1988-06-07

The first element, as to whether Williams was driving or operating the vehicle, is decided adversely to him. The truck was partially in a travelled portion of a four lane street, headed the wrong way with the lights on, and the ignition in the “on” position. The fact Williams was passed out with his head on the passenger side does not negate actual physical control.

Section 577.010 covers an intoxicated person who is asleep or passed out in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle, even when the vehicle is stuck.

State v. Nickerson · filed 1989-01-17

For purposes of the offense of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010, RSMo 1986, a person “operates” a motor vehicle when he is “in actual physical control” of the vehicle. ... Here as in State v. Taylor, 203 Mont. 284, 661 P.2d 33 (1983) (conviction for being “in actual physical control” of motor vehicle while intoxicated upheld), defendant was intoxicated and asleep or passed out in the driver’s seat of his vehicle which was running, but stuck. ... These facts are sufficient to support a conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Section 577.010.1 treats being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated as driving while intoxicated.

State v. Dey · filed 1990-10-30(1)

While it may be preferable, as appellant argues, for an intoxicated individual to seek refuge in his car as opposed to driving it, the legislature has made driving while intoxicated and being in actual physical control while intoxicated equally culpable.

Section 577.010 covers driving, operating, or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Parr · filed 1988-08-02

The term “driving”, as used in § 577.010 RSMo. 1986, is defined in § 566.001 as “physically driving or operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.” ... The evidence is sufficient for a jury to find that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Section 577.010 requires the State to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Caito · filed 1989-12-12

Section 577.010 requires the State prove defendant operated a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

Section 577.010’s corpus delicti is proven by evidence that someone operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Litterell · filed 1990-10-09

The corpus delicti of the driving while intoxicated under § 577.010 is proven by evidence that someone operated the motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The corpus delicti of a Section 577.010 offense requires evidence that someone operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Stimmel · filed 1990-12-11

The corpus delicti of driving while intoxicated, § 577.010 RSMo 1986, consists of evidence that someone operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Section 577.010 does not require the state to allege or prove that the accused operated the vehicle on a public road or highway.

State v. Hill · filed 1991-06-25

There is no requirement that it be either alleged or proved that the vehicle was operated by the accused on a public road or highway.

Section 577.010 requires proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged.

State v. Austin · filed 1993-09-07

The ticket as completed by Berry alleges that the defendant unlawfully operated his motor vehicle, it describes the violation as “intoxicated driving 1st offense,” and it advises that the conduct was in violation of RSMo § 577.010, specifically “DWI/ BAC.” We do not see how Berry’s use of the term “intoxicated driving” could be read to refer to anything other than the defendant’s condition. The elements of the offense of driving while intoxicated are twofold: that the defendant operated a motor vehicle and that he did so while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.

Section 577.010 covers actual physical control of a running vehicle even when the vehicle is motionless.

State v. Hoyt · filed 1996-05-28

To commit the offense of driving while intoxicated, a person must operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. Section 577.010 RSMo 1995. Actual physical control exists where there is domination or regulation of a vehicle and exists even where the vehicle is motionless as long as the person is keeping the vehicle restrained or is in the position to ... regulate its movements and the vehicle is running. ... This was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Mr. Hoyt was in control of the motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Section 577.010 does not require proof of actual physical control independent of a defendant’s admission to driving when circumstances corroborate the admission.

State v. Neal · filed 1998-11-13

Full proof, independent of a defendant’s admission that she was driving, is not required to prove she was in “actual physical control” of a vehicle.

Section 577.010.1 covers an intoxicated person who engages a parked vehicle’s machinery and can manipulate its movement, even though the vehicle does not move.

State v. Wiles · filed 2000-07-26(1)

Defendant was engaging the machinery of his vehicle and was in a position to manipulate its movement. Under this set of facts, the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and in sentencing him for “operating” a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Section 577.010, RSMo 1994, because there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 577.010 does not make a lawful arrest an element of driving while intoxicated.

State v. Galazin · filed 2001-10-23

In a driving while intoxicated case, the lawfulness of the defendant's arrest is not an element of the offense. The lawfulness of the arrest is instead a collateral issue, one that does not bear upon guilt or punishment.

Section 577.010 defines driving while intoxicated as operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged.

Hicks v. Director of Revenue · filed 2001-11-20

Section 577.010 RSMo 1986 defines the crime of driving while intoxicated as operation of a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.

Section 577.010 makes operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged a crime without requiring proof of a particular blood alcohol concentration.

State v. Martin · filed 2003-02-25

A person commits the crime of driving while intoxicated if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. ... Although a prima facie case of intoxication is established under section 577.037.1, RSMo 2000, when a chemical analysis reveals a driver’s blood alcohol concentration to be eight-hundredths of one percent or more, the presence of eight-hundredths of one percent by weight of alcohol in a driver’s blood is not an essential element of the offense of driving while intoxicated.

A driver operates a vehicle under § 577.010 when its engine is running, its transmission is in drive, and the driver’s foot on the brake is the only reason it is not moving.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2002-07-02

Clearly, as in Wiles, Mr. Mitchell was engaging the machinery of his vehicle and was in a position to manipulate its movement, since the engine was running, the vehicle was in gear to drive, and Mr. Mitchell’s pressing the brake pedal was the only reason his truck was not moving. Therefore, this court finds that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Mitchell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of operating his vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

Section 577.010 requires operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or drugged; merely attempting to operate it is insufficient.

State of Missouri v. Coday · filed 2016-04-19

Under Missouri law, to be guilty of driving while intoxicated, the person must operate the motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition, not merely attempt to operate the vehicle.

In a section 577.010 prosecution, independent evidence must corroborate a defendant’s statement that someone operated a vehicle while intoxicated before the statement is admitted.

State v. Madorie · filed 2005-03-01

To prove the corpus delicti of the offense of driving while intoxicated, there also must be sufficient independent evidence that corroborates Appellant’s statement to the officer at the police station that he was intoxicated while operating his vehicle.

Section 577.010(1) covers a broader range of intoxicated driving than Kansas DUI law.

State v. Myers · filed 2020-10-02(1)

Following Gensler, we find the district court did not err when it held Myers' Missouri DWI convictions could not be used to elevate her current charge to a felony DUI because the Missouri DWI statute criminalizes broader conduct than Kansas' DUI statute, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 8-1567.

Section 577.010 prohibits driving while intoxicated, and a conviction under it can qualify as a prior DUI conviction for sentencing under Nebraska law.

State v. Madison · filed 2017-01-31

In contrast to the statute at issue in Mitchell, supra, Missouri’s DWI statute targets the same conduct as Nebraska’s DUI statute. Both Missouri’s and Nebraska’s DUI laws prohibit intoxication which impairs a person’s ability to drive. Although Missouri’s statute requires “any intoxication that in any manner impairs” the driver’s ability while Nebraska requires impairment “to any appreciable degree,” this minor difference in language does not transform Madison’s Missouri DWI into a different offense.