Martin v. State

17 So. 2d 427, 31 Ala. App. 334, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 298
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 18, 1944
Docket4 Div. 805.
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 17 So. 2d 427 (Martin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin v. State, 17 So. 2d 427, 31 Ala. App. 334, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 298 (Ala. Ct. App. 1944).

Opinion

SIMPSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of being drunk on a public highway, and appeals. Officers of the law arrested him at his home and took him onto the highway, where he allegedly committed the proscribed acts, viz., manifested a drunken condition by using loud and profane language.

The pertinent provisions of our statute are: “Any person who, while intoxicated or drunk, appears in any public place where one or more persons are present, * * * and manifests a drunken condition by boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse, shall, on conviction, be fined”, etc. Code 1940, Title 14, Section 120.

Under the plain terms of this statute, a voluntary appearance is presupposed. The rule has been declared, and we think it sound, that an accusation of drunkenness in a designated public place cannot be established by proof that the accused, while in an intoxicated condition, was involuntarily and forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer. Thomas v. State, 33 Ga. 134, 125 S.E. 778; Reddick v. State, 35 Ga. 256, 132 S.E. 645; Gunn v. State, 37 Ga. 333, 140 S.E. 524; 28 C.J.S., Drunkards, § 14, p. 560.

Conviction of appellant was contrary to this announced principle and, in our view, erroneous. It appears that no legal conviction can be sustained under the evidence, so, consonant with the prevailing rule, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and one here rendered discharging appellant. Code 1940, Title 7, Section 260; Robison v. State, 30 Ala.App. 12, 200 So. 626; Atkins v. State, 27 Ala.App. 212, 169 So. 330.

Of consequence, our original opinion of affirmance was likewise laid in error. It is therefore withdrawn.

Reversed and rendered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

of Colorado v. 5 Star Feedlot
2019 COA 162 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Amsden
2013 VT 51 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2013)
James v. City of Birmingham
926 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (N.D. Alabama, 2013)
People v. Gastello
232 P.3d 650 (California Supreme Court, 2010)
People v. Low
232 P.3d 635 (California Supreme Court, 2010)
State v. Eaton
168 Wash. 2d 476 (Washington Supreme Court, 2010)
State v. Alvarado
200 P.3d 1037 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2008)
State v. Eaton
143 Wash. App. 155 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2008)
Ward v. State
994 So. 2d 293 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2007)
People v. Gastello
57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 293 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
Stephen Arthur Germani v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2005
State v. Winsor
110 S.W.3d 882 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
Commonwealth v. Meyer
431 A.2d 287 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
United States v. Coleman
475 F. Supp. 422 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1979)
Gorham v. United States
339 A.2d 401 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Raymond Moore
486 F.2d 1139 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)
Powell v. Texas
392 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 So. 2d 427, 31 Ala. App. 334, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-alactapp-1944.