392 U.S. 514, 88 S. Ct. 2145, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1254 (1968)
In late December 1966, appellant Leroy Powell was arrested and charged with being found in a state of intoxication in a public place in violation of Texas Penal Code, Art. 477 (1952).1 He was tried in the Corporation Court of Austin, Texas, found guilty, and fined twenty dollars. He appealed to the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, Texas, where a trial de novo was held.2
At the county court trial without a jury, the defense presented testimony from psychiatrist Dr. David Wade, who had examined Powell and testified that he is a chronic alcoholic with an uncontrollable compulsion to drink and that he loses the power to control his drinking.3 Powell testified that he works at a tavern shining shoes, makes about twelve dollars a week which he uses to buy wine, drinks wine every day, gets drunk about once a week, and usually goes to sleep in public places such as the sidewalk when drunk.4 The arresting officer testified that Powell staggered when he walked, that his speech was slurred, and that he smelled strongly of alcohol.5
The trial court entered findings of fact that chronic alcoholism is a disease which destroys the afflicted person's will power to resist the constant, excessive consumption of alcohol, that a chronic alcoholic does not appear in public by his own volition but under a compulsion symptomatic of the disease of chronic alcoholism, and that Powell is a chronic alcoholic who is afflicted with the disease.6 The court nevertheless convicted Powell and fined him fifty dollars.7
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. Powell appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.8 The record shows Powell had been convicted of public intoxication approximately one hundred times since 1949 and that he works shining shoes, earns about twelve dollars a week, and uses his earnings to buy wine, getting drunk about once a week usually in public places.9
Whether a chronic alcoholic who was convicted of being drunk in a public place in violation of a Texas statute may be punished consistently with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment?10
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, including punishment for a mere status or condition that a person is powerless to change as in Robinson v. California, but permits punishment for conduct even if symptomatic of a disease when the statute requires proof of an act in public.11
Yes. In late December 1966, appellant Leroy Powell was arrested and charged with being found in a state of intoxication in a public place in violation of Texas Penal Code, Art. 477 (1952). He was tried in the Corporation Court of Austin, Texas, found guilty, and fined twenty dollars. He appealed to the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, Texas, where a trial de novo was held.
At the county court trial without a jury, the defense presented testimony from psychiatrist Dr. David Wade, who had examined Powell and testified that he is a chronic alcoholic with an uncontrollable compulsion to drink and that he loses the power to control his drinking. Powell testified that he works at a tavern shining shoes, makes about twelve dollars a week which he uses to buy wine, drinks wine every day, gets drunk about once a week, and usually goes to sleep in public places such as the sidewalk when drunk. The arresting officer testified that Powell staggered when he walked, that his speech was slurred, and that he smelled strongly of alcohol.
The trial court entered findings of fact that chronic alcoholism is a disease which destroys the afflicted person's will power to resist the constant, excessive consumption of alcohol, that a chronic alcoholic does not appear in public by his own volition but under a compulsion symptomatic of the disease of chronic alcoholism, and that Powell is a chronic alcoholic who is afflicted with the disease. The court nevertheless convicted Powell and fined him fifty dollars.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. Powell appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction. The record shows Powell had been convicted of public intoxication approximately one hundred times since 1949 and that he works shining shoes, earns about twelve dollars a week, and uses his earnings to buy wine, getting drunk about once a week usually in public places.
The Texas statute punishes the act of being drunk in a public place, as shown by the arrest and the findings that Powell was in a public place while intoxicated.12 This is distinct from punishing the status of being a chronic alcoholic, as the statute requires proof of the public act.13 The findings of compulsion do not make the punishment cruel and unusual because the statute targets conduct that the state has an interest in regulating.14
Powell's conviction for being drunk in a public place does not violate the Eighth Amendment.15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black concurred in the result on the ground that the Texas statute punishes conduct rather than status.16 He emphasized that the trial court's findings were inadequate to support a broad constitutional rule and that extending Robinson would require the Court to decide questions of criminal responsibility and volition that are beyond judicial competence.17 Black stressed that the criminal law has always required proof of an act and that punishing a status is particularly objectionable because it reaches mere propensity without any conduct.18
He concluded that the Eighth Amendment does not compel states to inquire into which part of a defendant's personality is responsible for his actions.19
Justice White concurred in the judgment on the ground that the record failed to show Powell was compelled to appear in public while drunk.20 He noted that many chronic alcoholics drink at home and that Powell had a home and wife, making it feasible for him to drink privately.21 White explained that the statute could be unconstitutional as applied to an alcoholic who proved both an irresistible compulsion to drink and the impossibility of avoiding public places when intoxicated, but Powell made no such showing.22
He distinguished the case from Robinson because the statute here punished being in public while drunk rather than the status of addiction itself.23
Joined by Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, And Mr. Justice Stewart
Justice Fortas dissented on the ground that the trial court's findings established Powell was a chronic alcoholic powerless to resist drinking and that his appearance in public was the product of a compulsion symptomatic of the disease.24 He argued that Robinson prohibits punishing a person for a condition he is powerless to change and that the same principle applies when the condition is a characteristic part of the disease pattern.25 Fortas concluded that imposing criminal penalties on Powell for public intoxication under these findings would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.26