This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Powell (D) was a chronic alcoholic. D was arrested and charged with being drunk in a public place. At trial, D claimed that he was unable to control his drinking and his appearance in public while intoxicated was the symptom of the disease of alcoholism. D claimed his acts were involuntary as he could not control himself. This evidence was presented by Dr. David Wade who concluded that D had a disease and had no willpower to resist excessive consumption of alcohol. Dr. Wade admitted that D knew the difference between right and wrong while D was sober and that D’s taking of a first drink while sober was a voluntary exercise of will. Dr. Wade also opined that D has a compulsion to drink which is exceedingly strong. D also admitted that he had one drink in the morning before trial and had been able to discontinue. P made a brief argument that D was legally sane, and knew the difference between right and wrong. The trial court found that chronic alcoholism was a disease which destroyed the will to resist drinking but that a chronic alcoholic does not appear in public by his own volition but under compulsion of the disease, and that D is a chronic alcoholic. D was found guilty and fined $20; chronic alcoholism was not a defense to the crime charged. D appealed and was fined $50. D appealed. Note: In 1962, the Supreme Court held in Robinson v. State of California that a person may not be punished for the crime of being addicted to the use of narcotics; a state law which imprisons a person thus afflicted inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment. D contends that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to convict him for being a chronic alcoholic.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.