Scarborough v. State
| Citation | 231 Ga. 7,200 S.E.2d 115 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 28018,28018 |
| Parties | Homer M. SCARBOROUGH, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
O. L. Crumbley, Macon, for appellant.
Clarence Clay, Sol., James M. Wootan, .brayton S. Dasher, Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an appeal from a conviction for public drunkenness. The State Court of Bibb County, sitting as the trior of law and fact, found the defendant guilty and imposed a sentence of a fine of $75, or, in lieu of payment thereof, twenty-five days in jail.
The case comes to this court by virtue of a constitutional attack made by the defendant upon the pertinent provisions of Ga.L.1968, pp. 1249, 1315 (Code Ann. § 26-2607), defining the offense of public drunkenness as follows: 'A person who shall be and appear in an intoxicated condition in any public place . . . which condition is made manifest by boisterousness, or by indecent condition or act, or by vulgar, profane, loud, or unbecoming language, is guilty of a misdemeanor.'
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the accusation which charged him with a violation of this statute. His motion was overruled by the Judge of the State Court, and after a trial the defendant was found guilty. The appeal here raises two questions: (1) Is the public drunkenness statute unconstitutional? and (2) does the evidence support the finding of guilt?
It is unnecessary to pass on the constitutionality of this statute because, in our opinion, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The present statute is similar to the provisions of an earlier Georgia statute defining public drunkenness. Therefore, decisions of this court and the Court of Appeals of Georgia under the older statute are persuasive in understanding the essential elements of the offense.
Mere drunkenness in a public place is not enough. To complete the offense, the drunkenness must be made manifest by at least one of the ways specified in the statute. Plemons v. State, 60 Ga.App. 639(1), 4 S.E.2d 681. The part of the statute upon which the conviction was based in this case provides that a person 'who shall be and appear in an intoxicated condition in any public place . . . which condition is made manifest by . . . indecent condition or act . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.' This is true because counsel for the state conceded in his closing argument to the trial court. , ' there was no testimony here that he was vulgar or used any profane language.' In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant was boisterous or loud and so the state's attorney based his case for conviction squarely on 'the indecent condition or act' portion of the statute.
What do these words mean in the context of this statute? Earlier appellate decisions indicate they do not include the concept of recklessness, nor even of impropriety, unless the impropriety be such as to offend the sentiments of delicacy and modesty universally recognized in civilized communities. Davis v. State, 14 Ga.App. 569, 572, 81 S.E. 906. This case, and the later case of Hutcheson v. State, 24 Ga.App. 54, 99 S.E. 715, refer to the definition given by the Standard Dictionary (1913), p. 1247, wherein 'indecent' is defined as 'offensive to common propriety; offending against medesty or delicacy; unfit to be seen or heard; or immodest; gross; obscene.' The Revised Fourth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary generally follows this definition and relies on the Hutcheson case, supra, and Wood v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Runner
...to others in the vicinity of the offender. See, e.g., People v. Olson, 18 Cal.App.3d 592, 96 Cal.Rptr. 132 (1971); Scarborough v. State, 231 Ga. 7, 200 S.E.2d 115 (1973); United States v. Crutchfield, 418 F.Supp. 701 (W.D.Pa.1976); Dickey v. State, 552 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Other co......
-
Welch v. State
...appear intoxicated, but that he manifest this condition by boisterous, vulgar, loud, profane, or unbecoming language. Scarborough v. State, 231 Ga. 7, 200 S.E.2d 115 (1975). The Court of Appeals has further held that unless one of these outward manifestations or acts is present, no violatio......
-
Hammock v. State
...common understanding. See McCord v. State, 248 Ga. 765, 285 S.E.2d 724 (1982). As to the word "indecent," see Scarborough v. State, 231 Ga. 7, 8, 200 S.E.2d 115 (1973), where it is examined as part of another crime. In the context of "child molestation," the word would alert a defendant tha......
-
Smith v. State
...Part of its conclusion rests on the fact that the term "indecent condition or act" withstood a similar attack in Scarborough v. State, 231 Ga. 7, 200 S.E.2d 115 (1973). In that case, indecent condition was construed to mean "such as to offend public decency." Id. at 8, 200 S.E.2d 115. So th......