203 Mont. 284, 661 P.2d 33 (1983)
Harry Addison Taylor was convicted on July 28, 1982, of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highways of the State of Montana while under the influence of alcohol.1 On October 16, 1981, Deputy Richard Seibert responded to a call reporting a vehicle off the road on 38th Street West in Billings, Montana.2 At the scene, Seibert observed a vehicle in the borrow pit with its engine running and lights on, and found Taylor slumped over the steering wheel with the transmission in drive, though the vehicle was stuck and immobile.3
Deputy Seibert roused Taylor, who was either asleep or passed out, and placed him under arrest without performing field sobriety tests.4 Seibert transported Taylor to the Highway Patrol Office for a taped interview.5 Taylor was charged with driving while under the influence and pled not guilty in Justice Court.6
The Yellowstone County Attorney filed a complaint on January 26, 1982, charging Taylor with being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the highways while under the influence of alcohol.7 Trial was held in Justice Court on March 22, 1982, resulting in a guilty finding.8 The sentence was stayed pending appeal to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Montana.9
A nonjury trial was held in the District Court on June 16, 1982, where Taylor was found guilty and sentenced on August 12, 1982, to a $250 fine.10 The State called Deputy Seibert, Officer Thomas Carranco, and Les Muhlbeier as witnesses, while the defense presented no testimony.11
Officer Carranco testified that part of the vehicle extended over the blacktop.12 Muhlbeier prepared a map admitted for illustrative purposes showing the right-of-way extends about eighteen feet past the pavement and testified that the borrow pit area is dedicated to the county and the public.13 Taylor then appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Montana.14
Whether Taylor was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle while it was stuck in the borrow pit and hence immobile?15
Actual physical control under section 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA, exists when a person has existing or present bodily restraint, directing influence, domination or regulation of an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Movement of the vehicle is unnecessary to establish the offense.16
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that Taylor remained behind the steering wheel with the engine running and transmission in drive even though the vehicle was stuck. This positioning preserved his present bodily restraint and ability to direct or regulate the vehicle once freed, satisfying the definition without any requirement that the car be mobile at the moment of arrest.17
Taylor was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle at the time of his arrest.18
Whether the State of Montana proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the motor vehicle was upon the highways of the State of Montana?19
A highway under section 61-1-201, MCA, includes the entire width between boundary lines of every publicly maintained way open to public vehicular travel and also includes ways dedicated to public use when the charge arises under chapter 8 of title 61.20
Yes. The established facts include the assistant county surveyor's testimony that the borrow pit area right-of-way had been dedicated to Yellowstone County and the public. Because the charge was brought under chapter 8, this dedication placed the location within the statutory definition of a highway.21
The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the motor vehicle was upon the highways of the State of Montana.22
Whether the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adequate?23
Findings and conclusions are adequate when any reference to a nonexistent stipulation is harmless. Any reference to an illustrative map is clearly identifiable as the exhibit introduced at trial, especially where the defendant raised no objection to the witness's qualifications or testimony.24
Yes. The established facts show that Taylor did not object to the surveyor's testimony, did not question his qualifications, and did not cross-examine him. The reference to a nonexistent stipulation was therefore harmless, and the plat mentioned in the findings is readily understood as the map admitted for illustrative purposes.25
The District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adequate.26