Martin v. State – Alabama

Nature of the Case

Martin appealed his conviction for public drunkenness.

Facts

Martin was arrested at his home and taken to a public highway where he used loud and profane language, suggesting that he was intoxicated. Martin appealed his conviction for the crime of being drunk on a public highway.

Issue

Must there be a voluntary act for each element of a crime that requires an actus reus?

Holding and Rule of Law

Yes. There must there be a voluntary act for each element of a crime that requires an actus reus.

The criminal statute states that ‘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…” The defendant’s appearance must be voluntary. A conviction for drunkenness in a designated public place cannot be established by proof that the accused was involuntarily and forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer while in a drunken condition. There must be some type of voluntary act by the defendant to establish guilt.

Disposition

Reversed.

Notes

The crime in question has two elements: 1) appearance in a public place, and 2) the defendant must be drunk and use loud and profane language. Appearance presupposed that it was a voluntary appearance as opposed to one in which the defendant was involuntary taken to a public place by the police. The police cannot manufacture crimes. There must be an actus reus and it must be voluntary for it to amount to criminal conduct. The second element of this crime is the use of profane and loud language, which is also an actus reus, and which Martin voluntarily performed. There is no crime unless both elements are satisfied. Criminal law generally does not punish mere thoughts or involuntary actions.