Aiding and Abetting Impaired Driving

Nearly two thousand defendants were charged last year with aiding and abetting driving while impaired in violation of G.S. 20-138.1. A defendant aids and abets impaired driving when he knowingly advises, instigates, encourages, or aids another person to drive while impaired and his actions cause or contribute to the commission of the crime. See State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247, 260 (1999). But what, practically speaking, does this entail?

Defendant turns her car over to impaired driver and rides along

One situation clearly covered by the aiding and abetting theory is that in which a person knowingly gives control of her vehicle to an impaired person who then drives the vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while the owner rides along as a passenger. See State v. Gibbs, 227 N.C. 677, 678 (1947) (“When an owner places his motor vehicle in the hands of an intoxicated driver, sits by his side, and permits him, without protest, to operate the vehicle on a public highway, while in a state of intoxication, he is as guilty as the man at the wheel.”); State v. Whitaker, 43 N.C. App. 600, 604-05 (1979) (“[W]e hold that when a death results from the operation of a motor vehicle by an intoxicated person not the owner of that vehicle, the owner who is present in the vehicle and who with his knowledge and consent permits the intoxicated driver to operate the vehicle, is as guilty as the intoxicated driver.”); see also Story v. United States, 16 F.2d 342, 344 (D.C. Cir. 1926) (owner of and passenger in vehicle convicted as aider and abettor where impaired passenger asked defendant for and was given permission to drive); State v. Satern, 516 N.W.2d 839, 840 (Iowa 1994) (owner of and passenger in vehicle convicted as an accomplice where he “turned over” the driving to a person who was impaired); State v. Stratton, 591 A.2d 246, 248 (Me. 1991) (owner of and passenger in vehicle convicted as an accomplice where he asked his impaired employee to drive because employee was “soberer”); State v. Lemacks, 996 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tenn. 1999) (owner of and passenger in vehicle convicted as an accomplice where evidence uncertain if he was driving, but where in any event, he gave keys to impaired co-defendant); Williams v. State, 352 S.W.2d 230, 230 (Tenn. 1961) (owner of and passenger in vehicle convicted as aider and abettor where he had no valid license and had impaired friend drive).

Defendant turns his car over to impaired driver

It is somewhat less clear whether a person may be convicted of aiding and abetting impaired driving if he knowingly gives control of his vehicle to a person who is impaired, but does not himself accompany the driver. I have discovered no North Carolina cases considering this circumstance, but it seems likely that such conduct would support a conviction for aiding and abetting DWI. The vehicle owner’s presence in the car in the aiding and abetting cases cited above was probative of his consent to the driving as well his knowledge of the driver’s impairment. Yet a vehicle owner who hands over his keys to an impaired driver but does not himself ride along has provided the same degree of assistance and appears no less culpable than the owner who elects to accompany the driver. Indeed, the Court of Appeals of Georgia concluded in Guzman v. State, 586 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. App. 2003), that the owner of a vehicle who was neither the driver nor a passenger in the car aided and abetted driving under the influence where he gave beer and his car keys to the 14-year-old driver.

Defendant fails to stop impaired person from driving

A person may not be convicted of aiding and abetting impaired driving based on nothing more than her failure to stop a person she knows to be impaired from driving. See State v. Sanders, 288 N.C. 285, 290 (1975) (“The mere presence of the defendant at the scene of the crime, even though he is in sympathy with the criminal act and does nothing to prevent its commission, does not make him guilty of the offense.”)

The North Carolina Court of Appeals considered such a claim in Smith v. Winn-Dixie Charlotte, Inc., 142 N.C. App. 255, 264 (2001). Smith was a civil action in which the plaintiff, who was injured when a seventeen-year-old impaired driver struck her vehicle, alleged negligence by the grocery store who sold beer to the driver’s underage friend and negligence per se by the driver’s friends whom she contended aided and abetted the underage driver in violating G.S. 20-138.1.

The record in Smith established that the driver’s friends drank with him on the evening of the accident and that they saw the driver consume six beers in a short period of time. They did not attempt to stop him from driving his own car afterwards. The court of appeals determined, for purposes of the defendant-friends’ motions for summary judgment, that this evidence was not sufficient to establish that the friends aided and abetted the driver in committing the offense of driving while impaired. The court noted the lack of evidence that the friends intended to aid the driver or that they communicated any such intent. Moreover, the court stated that even assuming the friends knew or should have known the driver was impaired, they had no duty to prevent him from getting into his car and attempting to drive.

The Supreme Court of Vermont wrestled with more difficult facts in State v. Millette, 795 A.2d 1182 (Vt. 2002). There, the evidence established that the defendant and his friend left a night club in the early morning hours after a day and night of drinking.  The defendant, whose car was parked in the parking lot, suggested to his friend that they pull the car behind the night club and sleep. The defendant’s friend removed the keys from the defendant’s pocket and said he would drive the defendant home. The friend wrecked the car on the way home and was killed. The court concluded that these facts failed to establish that the defendant aided and abetted driving while impaired, noting that cases predicated on this theory of criminal liability rested on “more active participation” by the defendant than was present in Millette.

11 thoughts on “Aiding and Abetting Impaired Driving”

  1. I was not able to ascertain this from the data I received from the Administrative Office of the Courts. As you know, persons convicted of aiding and abetting DWI are sentenced at Level 5. So, for record-keeping purposes, those convictions typically are recorded under the same code as convictions for a principal punished for DWI at Level 5. There were more than 20,000 convictions under that code in 2012.

  2. It would be nice to know. I have never seen a guilty plea or trial to any A/A DWI charge. We even had one that I arrested the driver, tested him and he was picked up by the car owner at the Magistrate. I gave the keys to the car owner and advised her properly in front of the Magistrate. She then went back and put the same driver right back into her car at the scene. He was again arrested, and she was also. I would have thought that would have been a perfect case.

  3. In more than 4 years in different roles in two different counties in the District Ct system, I have never seen anyone convicted or even tried for this offense. In fact, it seems to be wildly overcharged and the typical practice of DAs is to dismiss the aid and abet charge once the underlying DWI is resolved. This leads to the expenditure of a lot of money appointing attorneys for indigent defendants whose cases are dismissed 99% of the time.

    Shea–what about the knowledge issue? In most of these cases, the car owner is likely also impaired. So couldn’t their impairment–especially if their greater level of impairment is the reason the owner isn’t driving–serve to undercut the requirement that the defendant knew the driver was impaired?

    • I definitely agree with you. I just got “pending charges” for this offense and the officer didn’t even inform me that I would be charged with a DWI.. he only mentioned the a/a and that’s all the ticket said also. I think this is an unfair charge, and that there should be more regulations or a better investigation on the cop’s part before handing out tickets to innocent people.

  4. MO: I do believe that voluntary intoxication may negate the knowledge required to prove aiding and abetting, as contrasted with the proof required for the underlying crime of impaired driving. Cf. State v. Creech, 210 N.C. 700 (1936) (holding that defendant car-owner and passenger was entitled to dismissal of manslaughter charges arising from the driving of his vehicle by an impaired driver since the evidence tended to show that the defendant was too drunk to be conscious of what was going on).

  5. I was charged with this offense and then once the person’s case was handled my case was dismissed. The frustration with this is that I did not know the person was impaired when he got behind the wheel and as he was my husband, I did not give him the keys to the car, he already had a set. Once we were on the road I recognized that he had been drinking and an argument occurred but I had no control over the car.

    I think it was irresponsible of the NC Trooper to give me a ticket because he did not know the circumstances of my being in the car or if I knew before his taking control of the car that he had been drinking. The stress of the ticket was uncalled for.

    • I am going through this now. I did not know that the driver of my car had a drink and we were stopped at a check point and he didn’t have his license on him so he had to get out of the car to get it in the trunk. We were at a beach. The police officer took advantage of him having to get out of the car to say “you smell like you had a drink”. It was totally bogus. He wasn’t driving erratically or anything. It was just because he didn’t have his license on his person. I also got a ticket and it’s going on 2 years that our case hasn’t been heard. I am just totally stressed out.

  6. I have a friend that was charged with A/A DWI this weekend. He was self admittedly too impaired to drive. He and 2 friends were leaving where they were and he said he couldn’t drive. One of the other friends offered to drive my friends car even though he had also been drinking but he felt comfortable driving. The driver was pulled for speeding (79 / 65). The officer then had the driver perform a breathalizer test and he blew a 0.07. However, it was discovered that the driver was driving with a suspended license. He was taken to the local police station and given another breathalizer where he then blew 1.0. Obviously, there are several factors invovled with this scenario, but my friend was not aware of the suspended license as he has witnessed the driver driving on a regular basis. Additionally, recognizing he was significantly too impaired to drive, how accountable is he to the actions of the driver?

  7. Car’s owner and friend are heading to restaurant.

    Car’s owner wants to wait to leave until she can apply her make-up. Friend says, “let me drive.”

    Car’s owner asks, “do you have a license to drive?”

    Friend says, “I do,” and proceeds to show car’s owner a what appears to her to be a valid, unexpired NC license.

    Car’s owner says, “Okay,” gives the keys to a friend and they get in the car to head to eat.

    While driving, car is pulled.

    Driver is charged with reckless driving (the officer states that he stopped the vehicle for weaving) and with driving while license revoked or suspended NOT IMPAIRED.

    Car’s owner is charged with aiding and abetting driving while license is revoked or suspended.

    AA requires actual or constructive knowledge.

    In the impaired driving cases, liability is strict, but I had thought that the A&A charge required KNOWLEDGE, which might be proved directly (“well, sure, he had 10 bourbons and stumbled walking to the car, but I thought he was in better shape than me”) or constructively.

    But in the AA DWL revoked or suspended, wouldn’t the KNOWLEDGE (or constructive knowledge) be that the license was revoked or suspended? And, on uncontradicted testimony that friend/driver advised owner that they had a NC Driver’s License and that the owner had examined it and concluded that it appeared valid, how could an AA charge stand?

  8. I have a client where the aid & abet DWI was dismissed; client is now seeking an expungment of the a/a dismissal. Our Clerk’s office told me this morning that Chapter 20 offenses cannot be expunged. I actually haven’t heard that before and just wanted to ensure that was correct. Isn’t the aid & abet a common law charge and it would be a misdemeanor? I would love some feedback on this and thank you!


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.