No. The law says a person has to 'appear' in public, which means they have to show up on their own. The court explained that it's unfair to punish someone for being drunk in a public place if the police are the ones who forced them to be there. The police can't create the crime themselves and then arrest you for it.

No, a person can't be convicted of public intoxication if the police forced them to go to the public place. I decide this because the law clearly says the person has to choose to go to the public place on their own. Other courts have also said it wouldn't be fair to convict someone for public intoxication if they were made to go in public by the police while drunk. In this case, the man's conviction was wrong based on the facts shown. Since the evidence doesn't support a proper conviction under the law, the first court's decision is reversed, and the man is let go.

No, a person can't be convicted of public intoxication if the police forced them to go to the public place. This is because the law clearly says the person has to choose to go to the public place on their own. Other courts have also said it wouldn't be fair to convict someone for public intoxication if they were made to go in public by the police while drunk. In this case, the man's conviction was wrong based on the facts shown. Since the evidence doesn't support a proper conviction under the law, the first court's decision is reversed, and the man is let go.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <opinion type="majority"> <author id="b359-15"> SIMPSON, Judge. </author> 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. </opinion>

No. An individual's involuntary presence in a public place does not satisfy the statutory element of 'appearing' there. The statute implicitly requires a voluntary appearance. The court reasoned that an accusation of public drunkenness cannot be established when the defendant was involuntarily and forcibly carried to the public place by the arresting officer. To hold otherwise would allow the state to create the criminal act itself. The court cited precedent from Georgia and the legal treatise Corpus Juris Secundum to support the principle that the act of 'appearing' in public must be of the person's own volition.

No, a conviction for public intoxication cannot be sustained if the accused was involuntarily and forcibly carried to the public place by the arresting officer. I reach this conclusion because the plain terms of the relevant statute, Code 1940, Title 14, Section 120, presuppose a voluntary appearance in public. Existing case law from other jurisdictions, which I find persuasive, has established the sound principle that a conviction for public drunkenness requires proof of a voluntary appearance in the public place and cannot be supported by evidence showing the accused was involuntarily and forcibly carried there by law enforcement. The conviction of the appellant was contrary to this established principle and was erroneous based on the evidence in the record. Since no legal conviction can be sustained under the evidence presented, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and a judgment is rendered here discharging the appellant.

Martin v. State

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Simpson, Judge

Analysis: