Brown v. State, 6 Div. 934
| Decision Date | 11 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 934 |
| Parties | Willie BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Morel Montgomery, Birmingham, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Robt. P. Bradley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The following charge was refused to defendant:
'Charge X. The Court charges you gentlemen, if after considering all the evidence in this case, you have a reasonable doubt that defendant was upon a public highway, at such time he is accused of being intoxicated, by or under the influence of liquor or narcotic drugs, but you believe he was a passenger at such time in a private vehicle, until removed to the highway by order of the officer Brown, then you can not convict him of the offense charged in this case 94071.'
This appellant was found guilty by a jury under a solicitor's complaint which charged that he: 'While intoxicated by or under the influence of liquor or narcotic drugs, did appear or travel upon or be along a public road or public highway,' etc.
The offense charged in the complaint originates in the provisions of an act approved 7 July 1945, Sec. 120(1), Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940, pocket part, the pertinent portion of said statute being as follows:
Mr. Clark Brown, a deputy sheriff for Jefferson County, was the principal witness for the State.
Mr. Brown's testimony was to the effect that while riding with his family he observed two automobiles collide at or near the intersection of 5th Avenue and 33rd Street, in Birmingham.
He stopped his car and walked to the scene.
According to Mr. Brown the appellant and Leroy Coleman were standing by one of the cars involved. Both men appeared to be drunk and were placed under arrest. Some difficulty was experienced in handling the appellant, and Mr. Brown placed him in his car forcefully after knocking him down one time.
The evidence presented by the defense was directed toward showing that the appellant, who under the undisputed evidence was a passenger in Coleman's automobile, did not leave Coleman's car until ordered and forced out by Mr. Brown.
It further appears from the record that during the cross examination of defense witness Leroy Coleman he testified that he and the appellant had been together earlier during the day. They had ridden out to Woodlawn together, and Coleman then let appellant out of his car near the home of appellant's mother. Coleman drove to his home and left his automobile. As he was walking near 42nd Street and Georgia Road he observed appellant 'rocking like a drunk person.' He returned to his home, obtained his car, returned to where appellant was and picked him up for the purpose of taking him home. It was while on this trip that Coleman collided with Glaze's automobile.
During the oral charge of the court to the jury the record shows the following:
'All right, you may retire.
'Mr. Montgomery: You say he was standing on the highway before the arrest?
'The Cour...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atchley v. State
...with this construction of a "public place" as it appears in either the Birmingham ordinance or State statute, but Brown v. State, 38 Ala.App. 312, 82 So.2d 806 (1955), in construing a similar State statute dealing with intoxication of one "along the public roads and highways of this state,"......
-
Wright v. State
...in private vehicles are not "in a public place" within the meaning of public intoxication statutes as expressed in Brown v. State, (1955) Ala., 38 Ala.App. 312, 82 So.2d 806, and Atkins v. City of Tarrant City, (1979) Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 322. However, in Indiana, the legislature's silenc......
-
State v. Runner
...the truck to show that he was intoxicated while riding as a passenger in a private vehicle upon a public road. See Brown v. State, 38 Ala.App. 312, 82 So.2d 806 (1955). Unlike State v. Drake, supra, where a violation of a municipal open bottle ordinance was held to constitute sufficient rea......
-
Ervin v. State
...for public intoxication was improper because he had been ordered out of the vehicle by the arresting officer, see Brown v. State, 38 Ala.App. 312, 314, 82 So.2d 806, 808 (1955), the fact of that allegedly improper arrest is not relevant to the legitimacy of the search and seizure. The appel......