majority">MARTIN, Judge.

Defendant’s motions to dismiss were properly denied.

Defendant further contends that in charging the jury the trial judge erred in failing to require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator’s license was in a state of revocation. This contention has merit.

In pertinent part, G.S. 20-28(a) provides:

“Any person whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license has been suspended or revoked other than permanently, as provided in this Chapter, who shall drive any motor vehicle *758upon the highways of the State while such licensé is suspended or revoked shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . . . ”

To constitute a violation of G.S. 20-28 (a) there must be (1) operation of a motor vehicle by a person (2) on a public highway (3) while his operator’s license is suspended or revoked. State v. Cook, 272 N.C. 728, 158 S.E. 2d 820 (1968). For purposes of Chapter 20, a highway or street is defined as “[t]he entire width between property or right-of-way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic.” G.S. 20-4.01(13).

In order to find defendant guilty of violating G.S. 20-28 (a), the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged offense took place upon a public highway. Failure to so instruct the jury was prejudicial error entitling defendant to a new trial. See, State v. Harris, 10 N.C. App. 553, 180 S.E. 2d 29 (1971).

New trial.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress