Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills
Decision Date | 14 November 1972 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 338 |
Citation | 269 So.2d 626,49 Ala.App. 171 |
Parties | Robert S. HARRIS v. CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Denaburg, Schoel & Meyerson and Thomas E. Maxwell, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles M. Thompson, Birmingham, for appellee.
Conviction of a minor for possessing 'and/or' consuming alcoholic beverages: fine of $25.00.
The last sentence of the judgment entry shows Harris paid the fine and was discharged. In such a case the appeal is not on a moot point. Johnson v. State, 172 Ala. 424, 55 So. 226.
Two errors are assigned. See Ray v. City of Prichard, 45 Ala.App. 32, 222 So.2d 345, cert. den. 396 U.S. 931, 90 S.Ct. 261, 24 L.Ed.2d 228. The first assignment is directed to the trial court's 'overruling Defendant's Demurrer Number 1 * * *.' The second assigns overruling the second demurrer.
The first ground says the complaint is void for vagueness. The amended complaint reads as follows:
'COMPLAINT
'Comes the City of Vestavia Hills, Alabama, a municipal corporation, and complains that Robert Sims Harris, a minor, within twelve (12) months before the beginning of this prosecution on, to wit, the 17th day of April, 1971, and within the City of Vestavia Hills, did possess and/or consume alcoholic beverages contrary to and in violation of Ordinance 73 of the City of Vestavia Hills.
'CALLAWAY & VANCE
Charles M. Thompson (sig)
By Charles M. Thompson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
City of Vestavia Hills'
While 'and/or' is not worthy of Thackeray's elegant prose, 1 we believe that, without further grounds of demurrer, the charge validly is at least an alternative one either of possessing or consuming.
Ordinarily consuming a beverage presupposes a voluntary caption by mouth. It may well be argued that by reason of metamorphosis through body chemistry a beverage once consumed cannot scientifically be said to have retained its beverage properties, particularly with the alcohol being absorbed into the bloodstream. Hence, possess and consume from the use of 'and/or' presents one aspect that is meaningless. See Poucher v. State, 46 Ala. 272, 240 So.2d 694.
However, possessing and consuming are not semper et ubique mutually exclusive. The use of 'and/or' cannot render the complaint void in toto. Moreover, this point was omitted in brief.
Appellant argues both his assignments together. The gist of claimed error is said to lie in the failure of the complaint (1) to aver the terms of the ordinance, and (2) to allege that it was duly adopted.
The City in brief relies on Ex parte McElroy, 241 Ala. 554, 4 So.2d 437. But that opinion discussed the form of complaint in the recorder's court under the influence of the jeofails and amendment statute, Code 1940, T. 13, § 346. Here we are concerned with the adequacy vel non of the de novo complaint in the Circuit Court.
In Knight v. City of Birmingham, 43 Ala.App. 117, 180 So.2d 288, the complaint referred to 'the General City Code of Birmingham of 1964.' We take judicial notice of ordinances of some cities including Birmingham, but no statute extends this aid to the by-laws of Vestavia Hills.
In Young v. City of Attalla, 25 Ala.App. 255, 144 So. 128, after referring to the leading case of Rosenberg v. City of Selma, 168 Ala. 195, 52 So. 742, Bricken, P.J., went on to explain:
(Italics added.)
See also Miles v. City of Montgomery, 17 Ala.App. 15, 81 So. 351; and Taylor v. City of Decatur, 40 Ala.App. 571, 117...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Calhoun v. State
...not hamper defendant's ability to understand the nature of the charge or to prepare a defense.) See also Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala.App. 171, 173, 269 So.2d 626 (1972)." 542 So.2d at 312-13. Although the use of disjunctive pleading is now discouraged, see Rule 13.3, Ala.R.Crim......
-
Minshew v. State, 1 Div. 712
...not hamper defendant's ability to understand the nature of the charge or to prepare a defense.) See also Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala.App. 171, 173, 269 So.2d 626 (1972). Thus, while the use of "and/or" should be avoided where it results in uncertainty or confusion, here it did ......
-
Cooper v. City of Daphne
...170 of the 1901 Constitution: 'The State of Alabama, by its District Attorney complains of C.D. that * * *.' 'In Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala.App. 171, 269 So.2d 626, we quoted from Town of Lineville v. Gauntt, 20 Ala.App. 135, 101 So. 154. In this latter case we 'Where a compla......
-
Whitehead v. City of Russellville, 8 Div. 173
...we take notice thereof as a fundamental error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. * * *' In Harris v. City of Vestavia Hills, 49 Ala.App. 171, 269 So.2d 626, we quoted from Town of Lineville v. Gauntt, 20 Ala.App. 135, 101 So. 154. In this latter case we 'Where a complai......