of the vehicle, the amended instruction was more accurate in the State’s view. The district court noted that the statutes in question required the jury to find Defendant “operated” rather than “drove” a motor vehicle. The district court concluded that the jury could find “physical control” under the facts and accepted the amended instruction. {37} On appeal, Defendant argues that the jury instruction which was given misstated the law. Defendant urges this Court to find that the instruction, sometimes referred to as the “Boone instruction,” incorporates a much broader definition of “operating a motor vehicle” and a range of activities that was intended to apply to the DWI statute exclusively, and not to vehicular homicide. See Boone v. State, 105 N.M. 223, 226, 731 P.2d 366, 369 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Instructing the jury that the State only had
recognizing that under california law violating section 23140 is equivalent to driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of the california vehicle code holding that the insurance applicable to the tortfeasors vehicle must be compared to the underinsured vehicle policy limits to determine whether a vehicle is underinsured holding automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary holding that a defendant exercised control over a firearm that was found in a vehicle he was driving