Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

435 So. 2d 158

Smith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided March 29, 1983

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1983-03-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The information charged that the defendant ‘did commit the offense of Driving Under the Influence in violation of Section 32-5A-191 of the Code of Alabama.’ The information is fatally defective because it does not specify whether the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol (Section 32-5A-191(a)(2)), under the influence of a controlled substance (Section 32-5A-191(a)(3)), or under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance (Section 32-5A-191(a)(4)). The information did not allege a criminal offense in that it failed to describe any offense condemned by Section 32-5A-191.” (Citations omitted.)”

quoted by 7 later decisions, including State v. Keith, Knight v. City of Gardendale

Relies on 417 So. 2d 611 - Barbee v. State · 131 Ill. App. 2d 598 - People v. Tucker · 37 Ill. App. 2d 344 - People v. Stringfield

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably 778 So. 2d 199 - Hyde v. State (1998), 549 So. 2d 122 - Holladay v. State (1988)

1 federal appellate · 104 state decisions

6101983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2This is an appeal from a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. That conviction must be reversed because the information is void.

¶3The information charged that the defendant "did commit the offense of Driving Under the Influence in violation of Section32-5A-191 of the Code of Alabama." The information is fatally defective because it does not specify whether the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol (Section 32-5A-191 (a)(2), under the influence of a controlled substance (Section 3-5A-191 (a)(3), or under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance (Section 32-5A-191 (a)(4). The information did not allege a criminal offense in that it failed to describe any offense condemned by Section 32-5A-191. People v. Sinsi,57 Ill. App.3d 716, 15 Ill.Dec. 378, 373 N.E.2d 724 (1978); Peoplev. Tucker, 131 Ill. App.2d 598, 268 N.E.2d 191 (1971); People v.Stringfield, 37 Ill. App.2d 344, 185 N.E.2d 381 (1962). See alsoBarbee v. State, 417 So.2d 611 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).

¶4The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶6DeCARLO, P.J., and TYSON and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

/435/so2d/158 · .json · Public domain