Court Opinion

ID: 9857717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 15:55:56.103999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:24.876544
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(concurring). In this case there is no issue of right to counsel. Brief for the defendant states “he [defendant] was advised by the Court of his rights to trial and to counsel even at public expense if necessary.”
It is defendant’s claim that he is a chronic alcoholic with a progressive illness causing him loss of the power of self-control in use of alcoholic beverages.
At the hearing on defendant’s petition to vacate sentence and for a new trial, Richard Bates, M.D., managing director of the Alcoholism Therapy Unit at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Michigan, testified that he had examined Hoy, had interviewed him for *619approximately 30 minutes, obtained from Mm a Mstory of Ms drinldng habits, and saw copies of Ms medical and police records. Hoy told Mm that be bad been drinldng liquor since age 12, drank enough at age 16 to have a temporary “black-out”, was arrested over 20 times on charges related to drinking, was divorced by his wife because of his drinking, and drank himself into a state of amnesia approximately a hundred times. Dr. Bates also testified that Hoy told him that on two occasions, once in 1950 and again in 1961, he stayed away from liquor on a voluntary basis for as long as three months at a time.
Dr. Bates was of the opinion that Hoy was a chronic alcoholic on the date of the offense here involved and that chronic alcoholism is a “lifelong disease from which there is no cure.” His evaluation of Hoy’s condition was based upon the medical history, the hospital report, the police report and what he was told by other people. Dr. Bates testified he found “no physical symptoms” indicating prior excessive drinking.
Donald L. Damstra, M.D., whose practice was confined entirely to the treatment of chronic alcoholism, testified that he examined Hoy for about one hour on January 22, 1965, the day of the hearing. He was of the opinion that Hoy was a chronic alcoholic. Dr. Damstra was asked whether a chronic alcoholic has control of himself relative to the use of alcohol, and he replied:
“There are certainly times when he does not.”
Hoy testified that when he was arrested he knew where he was, he knew he was intoxicated and he knew what he was doing. He described a trip “out West” and stated he gave up drinking for a period of three months during that trip. During those three months he would have an urge to go to a bar *620and “have a few * * * bnt I fought it.” Hoy was asked:
“Q. Do I understand correctly, that when you came back here and started drinking after those three months, you didn’t drink because you had any strong compulsion to drink, but just because you didn’t have anything else to do and you had given up on finding a job, is that why you started to drinking?
“A. No, I didn’t have no compulsion to drink, I mean it is nothing like a magnet drawing you or anything, but it had been my way of life for so long, I just didn’t feel right unless I was sidled up to a bar.
“Q. It got to be a habit, it was a comfortable thing to do, is that right?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. But it was a thing that you could stop any time you wanted to, wasn’t it?
“A. No, I wouldn’t say that because I could go about seven days and my hands would start shaking. I noticed the tremor in my hands, and I would go get a drink to calm me down.”
Neither the medical testimony nor Hoy’s own testimony presents a convincing ease of an alcoholic whose addiction has reached the point of total un-controllability, or even total lack of accountability while in a drunken state. The medical testimony which was offered was based upon a half-hour interview with the defendant by. one doctor and an hour interview by another. In my opinion, it completely fails to support the thesis upon which defendant’s appeal is based. Furthermore, the defendant’s own testimony fails to furnish the necessary underlying support to this thesis. The mere application of a label “chronic alcoholic”, which covers a multitude of diverse fact situations, is insufficient *621to raise the issues which were sought to he tested here. I would reserve decision on those issues.Because I believe the record shows that defendant’s intoxication in a public place resulted from his voluntary exercise of free choice, I vote to affirm the Court of Appeals.
Souris, J., concurred with Adams, J.
T. M. KavaNAGh, J., concurred in result.
Dethmeks, C. J., did not sit.