Charles Thompson v The City Of Oklahoma City
M 2007-0118
Filed: Feb. 3, 2008
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Charles Thompson
Summary
Charles Thompson appealed his conviction for Public Drunkenness. Conviction and sentence were reversed. Johnson dissented.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there insufficient evidence to convict Appellant of the crime of Public Intoxication?
- Did Appellant ever occupy a public place while intoxicated?
Findings
- the court erred
- evidence was not sufficient
M 2007-0118
Feb. 3, 2008
Charles Thompson
Appellantv
The City Of Oklahoma City
Appellee
v
The City Of Oklahoma City
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LEWIS, JUDGE: Following a bench trial, Appellant was found guilty of Public Drunkeness in the Municipal Court of Oklahoma City, Case No. 053148815. The Honorable William J. Manger, Municipal Judge, fined Appellant $69.00. Appellant appeals from the Judgment and Sentence imposed. On appeal Appellant raised the following propositions of error:
1. There was insufficient evidence to convict Appellant of the crime of Public Intoxication.
2. Appellant was never in a public place while intoxicated.
Finding merit to Appellant’s first proposition of error, Appellant’s conviction for Public Drunkeness is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions to dismiss. Section 30-85 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code directs that no person shall be found intoxicated in any public place or upon any private property not lawfully under his or her control. The elements of this offense are (1) being in a state of intoxication and (2) in a public place. See Findlay v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK CR 113, q15, 561 P.2d 980.
In Findlay we stated it is important to remember that the objective of a statute or ordinance prohibiting public intoxication is to protect the public and that it was apparent the lawmakers intended to ban all drunk or intoxicated persons from all places where the public has a right to be and where such person is apt to come in contact with or annoy the public. Id.
In the present case Appellant was in a large suite at a hotel in Oklahoma City he had rented when the police knocked on his door. The testimony reflects the police were responding to a noise complaint around midnight on November 18, 2006. The record shows Appellant had rented the suite to host a youth football team to watch film and eat pizza before their championship game the next day. Approximately 21 of the young kids participating in the Greater Oklahoma City Youth Football Championship had been in the suite earlier in the evening. Testimony reflects all of the kids had been picked up by their parents before 10:00 p.m. that evening and that six or seven adults remained in the suite after the kids left making banners and talking about the game plan. Appellant testified he was not aware of any noise complaints and questioned why they were being told by the police to leave the premises. Two officers testified Appellant was belligerent and they could smell a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on Appellant’s breath. When Appellant stepped across the threshold of his suite onto the landing, he was immediately handcuffed and arrested for Public Intoxication.
Three witnesses who were in the suite that evening, plus Appellant, testified no one was drinking that evening, that Appellant was not drinking alcohol, and that Appellant was not intoxicated. The officers all testified Appellant’s speech was slightly slurred, but at trial it was shown Appellant has a speech impediment. Appellant did not resist arrest, he did not stagger, he was not unsteady on his feet, he was not abusive, he was not confused and there was no visible evidence of alcohol.
The standard for this Court’s review is set forth in Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, II 7, 709 P.2d 202: whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not find the evidence in this case supports a conviction for Public Drunkeness. The evidence does not show Appellant was drunk in a public place.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS to DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
MICHAEL S. JOHNSON
830 N.W. 10TH
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73106
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
MICHAEL FOUTS, KENNETH D. JORDAN
Assistant Municipal Counselor
700 Couch Drive
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
COUNSEL FOR THE CITY
OPINION BY: LEWIS, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur in Results
C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concur
CHAPEL, J.: Concur
A. JOHNSON, J.: Concur
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1220.
- Okla. Stat. tit. 11 § 30-85.
- Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, II 7, 709 P.2d 202.
- Findlay v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK CR 113, q15, 561 P.2d 980.
- Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2007).
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 11 § 30-85 - Prohibition of Public Intoxication
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Definition of Public Intoxication
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- Findlay v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK CR 113, ¶15, 561 P.2d 980
- Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶7, 709 P.2d 202