The court stated that “The rule has been declared, and we think it sound, that an accusation of drunkenness in a designated public place cannot be established by proof that the accused, while in an intoxicated condition, was involuntarily and forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer.”
Because Martin’s did not voluntarily go to the highway, but instead was arrested and brought to the highway by police officers, the court ruled that his conviction cannot stand.
The court reversed his conviction stating, Conviction of appellant was contrary to this announced principle and, in our view, erroneous. It appears that no legal conviction can be sustained under the evidence, so, consonant with the prevailing rule, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and one here rendered discharging appellant.