determining that the evidence about the route that a driver took on a beach was sufficient to uphold a conviction for driving intoxicated on a public highway
How later courts described this case
- determining that the evidence about the route that a driver took on a beach was sufficient to uphold a conviction for driving intoxicated on a public highway
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MORRISON, Judge,
dissenting.
I cannot bring myself to agree with the opinion of my brethren herein. There is an entire absence of any showing that the portion of the beach where this offense occurred was main *174 tained by any governmental authority as a public road. In fact, the father of the injured child testified,
“A. Well, sir, there’s no road there * * *
“Q. No road there? A. None marked off.”
Another state’s witness testified as follows:
“A. I’d say it depended on the tide. Sometimes when the tide is way in, the traffic moves on up the beach.
“Q. You know how that traffic moves, don’t you? You know as the tide comes in, the traffic moves farther and farther back, don’t you? A. Yes.
“Q. There is really no beach road down there. You say you first saw James Brown a block in front of you? A. Yes.”
When the legislature enacted Article 827f, V.A.P.C., they intended, as I see it, that such article should be employed in all prosecutions for driving on the beaches of this state except those places where a well-defiined and regularly maintained roadway might be found.
I respectfully enter my dissent.