State Ex Rel. Harper v. Zegeer

Majority - Harshbarger, Justice

Yes. Criminally prosecuting and jailing a chronic alcoholic for public intoxication violates the state constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court recognizes that alcoholism is a disease, and public intoxication is an involuntary symptom of this disease for a chronic alcoholic who lacks the power of self-control. Drawing on the principles of Robinson v. California, which prohibited punishing the status of being a drug addict, the court holds that punishing an individual for a compulsive manifestation of a disease is unconstitutional. The court finds the reasoning of pre-Powell v. Texas cases like Driver v. Hinnant and Easter v. District of Columbia persuasive, which held that an alcoholic's public presence is not a willed act and thus lacks the essential element of criminal responsibility. The court explicitly rejects the arguments that this defense would apply to other crimes, that jail is beneficial for alcoholics, or that there is a meaningful distinction between the status of alcoholism and the act of appearing drunk in public for someone who cannot control their drinking. Furthermore, the court separately holds that the inhumane conditions of many jails in the state, characterized by filth and lack of basic necessities, also constitute cruel and unusual punishment.