Adams v. State
Opinion
At a trial for criminal contempt for violating an injunction against the possession of intoxicating liquors, it was proven that Adams had in his possession a quantity of intoxicating liquor. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove him guilty of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt because it was not shown that he was able to comply with the injunction; that it was shown by the testimony that the liquor he possessed was “drinking whiskey” kept for his personal use; that he was addicted to drinking whiskey, and was thereby unable to comply with the decree enjoining him from possessing liquor. This argument is unusual and unsound.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
85 So. 2d 908 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.