Holley v. State, 7 Div. 937.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 937. |
| Citation | 25 Ala.App. 260,144 So. 535 |
| Parties | HOLLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. B. Merrill, Judge.
Howard Holley was convicted of driving a vehicle on the highway while intoxicated, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Holley v. State, 144 so 537.
Young & Longshore, of Anniston, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged by affidavit in the court of common pleas of Calhoun county that he did drive a car along the highway of Calhoun county while intoxicated. On appeal to the circuit court, the solicitor filed his information, which charged the defendant "being under the influence of intoxicating liquors did drive a vehicle upon a highway in this state contrary to law." The point is here made that there is a variance between the original affidavit and the information as filed by the solicitor. The language used either in the affidavit or the information was sufficient, in common parlance, to charge an offense under the section above. Neither of them charged a violation of section 3324 Michie's Code, Acts 1919, p. 1002, § 28. That section applies alone to motor vehicles, while the section here is broader and covers any kind of vehicle.
The argument is made that there is a material substantial difference between "being under the influence of intoxicating liquors" and "being intoxicated." The difference is that of "Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum." If a man is under the influence of intoxicating liquors, he is intoxicated, and, if he is intoxicated within the meaning of this statute, he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There are perhaps as many stages of intoxication as there are varieties of Heinz pickles, and the party affected rarely knows when he passes from one to another. But, in whatever stage he is, if he drives a vehicle upon the public road he becomes a menace to the public and subjects himself to the penalties of the statute.
The evidence for the state tended to prove the charge and also to show a collision between defendant's car and the car of a man by the name of Johnson. All of the facts tending to prove the condition of defendant at that time were relevant and admissible, but, as to who was to blame or how much damage was done, were not issues involved in the trial of this case and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glanzman
...559, citing State v. Rodgers, 91 N.J.L. 212, 102 A. 433 (2d case) [5]; State v. Hedding, 114 Vt. 212, 42 A.2d 438; Holley v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535; Wallace v. State, 44 Ga.App. 571, 162 S.E. 162 case); Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App. 191, 170 S.E. 86. The text of the remarks by th......
-
State v. Boag
... ... 1234, 206 N.W. 133, 42 A.L.R. 1496; Holley v. State, ... 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535; Id., 225 Ala. 597, 144 ... ...
-
Woods v. State
...saying, 'I meant to kill him.' (R. 103). Woods admittedly was within one of the 57 varieties of intoxication. See Holley v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535. When this problem of incremental evaluation of alcoholic influence 2 occurs in homicides the Law throws its hands skyward and leav......
-
Evans v. State
...between "being under the influence of intoxicating liquors" and "being intoxicated." As Judge Samford commented in Holley v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 261, 144 So. 535 (1932): "The difference is that of 'Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum.' ... There are perhaps as many stages of intoxication as the......