MARTIN v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

4 Div. 805.

Advocates

W. Perry Calhoun, of Dothan, for appellant. The original arrest being unlawful and without a warrant, the subsequent happenings by appellant should not be used against him to make out a case of public drunkenness. If appellant's acts were the result of compulsion and duress, this is a good defense. Browning v. State, ante, p. 137, 13 So.2d 54; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313. Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Frank N. Savage, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. It is no defense to the perpetration of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in the way. Nelson v. City of Roanoke, 24 Ala. App. 277, 135 So. 312. Compulsion which will excuse crime must be present, imminent and impending and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. Such compulsion must have arisen without the fault or negligence of the person asserting it as a defense. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, page 99, § 44; 16 C.J. 91; Moore v. State, 23 Ala. App. 432, 127 So. 796; Thomas v. State, 134 Ala. 126, 33 So. 130; Browning v. State, ante, p. 137, 13 So.2d 54. Burden of proving defense of duress is upon accused. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, page 888, § 575.

Judges

SIMPSON, Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Cephus Martin was convicted of public drunkenness after officers arrested him at his home and took him onto a public highway where he allegedly manifested a drunken condition by using loud and profane language. He appealed the conviction. The case was heard by the Court of Appeals of Alabama, with a rehearing granted. The original conviction was affirmed but later reversed and rendered on rehearing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a conviction for public drunkenness under the statute can be sustained when the accused was involuntarily and forcibly taken to the public place by law enforcement officers.
Whether the accused's acts, if resulting from compulsion or duress due to unlawful arrest without a warrant, can be used to establish guilt for public drunkenness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The original arrest was unlawful and without a warrant.
The acts committed by appellant after arrest should not be used against him to prove public drunkenness.
If appellant's conduct was the result of compulsion and duress, this constitutes a valid defense.
Relied on precedents such as Browning v. State and Gassenheimer v. State to support the defense of duress.

State's Arguments

It is no defense that facilities for committing the crime were purposely placed in the way.
Compulsion as a defense must be present, imminent, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm.
Compulsion must arise without fault or negligence of the accused.
The burden of proving duress as a defense lies with the accused.
Supported arguments with case law including Nelson v. City of Roanoke, Moore v. State, Thomas v. State, and Browning v. State, as well as legal treatises.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Browning v. State, 13 So.2d 54	Defense of duress and compulsion in criminal acts	Referenced by appellant and state; court acknowledged duress as a possible defense but focused on involuntary presence in public place
Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313	Defense of compulsion and duress	Supported appellant's argument for duress defense
Nelson v. City of Roanoke, 135 So. 312	No defense if facilities for crime were purposely placed	State cited to argue limits of duress defense
Moore v. State, 127 So. 796	Requirements for compulsion to excuse crime	State cited to define strict conditions for duress defense
Thomas v. State, 134 Ala. 126, 33 So. 130	Compulsion must be imminent and without fault of accused	State cited to clarify burden of proof for duress
Robison v. State, 200 So. 626	Procedural rule for reversal and rendering judgment	Court applied in reversing and rendering judgment discharging appellant
Atkins v. State, 169 So. 330	Similar procedural application as Robison	Applied in support of reversal and discharge
Thomas v. State, 125 S.E. 778 (33 Ga.)	Voluntary appearance required for public drunkenness conviction	Key precedent establishing that involuntary presence cannot sustain conviction
Reddick v. State, 132 S.E. 645 (35 Ga.)	Same principle as Thomas regarding involuntary presence	Reinforced the rule against conviction based on forced presence
Gunn v. State, 140 S.E. 524 (37 Ga.)	Voluntary presence required under drunk in public statutes	Supported court's conclusion reversing conviction

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language requiring a "voluntary appearance" in a public place manifesting drunkenness. It held that the accused was forcibly taken to the public highway by officers, and thus the acts committed there could not form the basis of a lawful conviction. The court referenced multiple precedents from Georgia and Alabama which support the principle that involuntary presence at a public place cannot sustain a conviction for public drunkenness. The court found that the conviction was contrary to this principle and that no legal conviction could be sustained on the evidence presented. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a discharge for the appellant.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED AND RENDERED

The court reversed the conviction of Cephus Martin for public drunkenness and rendered a judgment discharging him. The decision directly affects the parties by overturning the conviction. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming the existing principle that involuntary presence in a public place cannot ground a conviction for public drunkenness under the statute.

Show full summary ...

MARTIN v. STATE.

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.