## Facts

- Burl H. Taft was indicted in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.
- The indictment contained two counts: (1) driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and (2) driving while under the influence of drugs or narcotics to a degree rendering him incapable of safely driving.
- The prosecution arose from the same occurrence involved in a related case tried around the same time.
- The incident involved Taft seated in a parked car when the brakes allegedly released and the car drifted a short distance and struck another parked vehicle.
- Taft’s defense contested the “driving” element, arguing the slight, unintended movement did not constitute “driving” under the statute.
- During trial, some jurors had been present during jury impaneling and part of the evidence in the earlier related proceeding involving Taft.
- After the jury asked whether there was a legal definition of “driving,” the court instructed that “driving” requires the vehicle to be in motion.
- The trial court refused Taft’s proposed instruction that would have authorized acquittal if the jury found the car moved only because the brakes accidentally released and the movement was not his act or intent.
- The jury found Taft guilty, and the court sentenced him to six months in the county jail, consecutive to the sentence in the related case.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying a continuance and refusing to discharge a juror based on jurors’ exposure to parts of a related proceeding involving the same defendant.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its supplemental instruction defining “driving” as requiring vehicle motion and in refusing the defendant’s fact-specific instruction treating accidental drifting as not “driving.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the continuance and juror-discharge rulings were within the trial court’s discretion and showed no prejudicial error or abuse of discretion.
- The court approved the supplemental instruction that “driving” requires the vehicle to be in motion.
- The court upheld the refusal of the defendant’s proposed instruction that would have treated accidental movement as legally defeating the “driving” element.

## Legal Principles

- Motions for continuance and requests to discharge a juror based on alleged exposure to related proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires prejudicial error and an abuse of that discretion.
- For purposes of the DUI offense at issue, “driving” requires that the vehicle be in motion.
- A court may refuse an instruction that effectively resolves a disputed factual element by directing how the jury should treat specific evidence (such as characterizing slight movement as “accidental” and therefore not “driving” as a matter of law).
- Applying the legal definition of “driving” to the circumstances is generally a question for the jury under proper, non-directive instructions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Taft’s DUI conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or juror discharge based on limited exposure to a related proceeding, and that the jury was properly instructed that “driving” requires vehicle motion while the defense’s fact-specific “accidental drift” instruction was properly refused.


State v. Taft, 102 S.E.2d 152 (W. Va. 1958)