Alcohol & Drugs: MIP, MIC, Intoxication # 06-7497 Minor In Possession

[TenYearsBob]

I was at a party back in either April or May. I had not been drinking, nor was I legally in possesion of any alcoholic substance. This is a very mixed up and complex story but I'll make it as easy as possible to read.

I had been swimming in the pool, and had lost both of my contacs. I didn't have my glasses so I was practically blind. After getting out and changing back into my casual clothes some girl pulled me back in, so rather than where wet clothes all night I was forced to make do with a towel. The reason I explain this is because when the officer's arrived they took one look at me and obviously assumed I was probably the most intoxicated person at the party simply because I was in a towel and couldn't see straight. Yes, I assure these excuses are 100% valid, I even have documentation citing the purchase of bran new contacs durring the week following the party. In any case, the officers involved handed out 20 or so M.I.P.s that night, including one to myself. When I appeared before the Justice of the peace I was giving the option of pleading guilty or not guilty and to have or wave the trial by jury. The judge himself explained to me his interpretation of what was considered "possession", and I was cleary not guilty according to him. So I plead not guilty and waved the trial by jury.

Yesterday morning I was scedueled for my pre-court arraignment. The conversation between me and the county attourney went almost exactly as such:

Him: "You're here regarding an MIP from the (person's name) party"
Me: "Yes sir"
Him: "Well, I've already talked to about twenty people about this and I'm pretty certain you were drinking... But I assume you have some story you'd like to tell, otherwise you wouldn't have plead not guilty."
Me: "Honestly sir I was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and I was in fact not legally in possession of alcohol."
Him"Yeah, I agree, you really may not have been in possession. However it's no trouble to me to call the officer that wrote the ticket and have the charges changed to a minor in consumption."
Me: "How could you charge me with consumption?""
Him: "Well, in the state of Texas all it takes to be prosecuted for a minor in consumption, is for the officer to testify that you were drunk."
Me: "But I would have had to have been in consumption to be guilty of that charge, correct."
Him: "So you're saying you weren't drinking?"
Me: "No sir, I was not."
Him: "Alright, we'll let you know by a mail correspondence what we're going to do, you're free to go."

Now from what I'm told had they decided to drop all charges they would have told me right then and there. But judging by the guy's attitude, which wasn't in the least bit as friendly as my own, I don't think that is what they intend.

So my questions are: Can they actually have the charges changed to an MIC be it this far after the incident? Is the officer's testimony all that is really needed to prosecute me? How valid is the testimony of these twenty some odd other "witnesses" that I'm sure were actually pretty drunk themselves?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

I was at a party back in either April or May. I had not been drinking, nor was I legally in possesion of any alcoholic substance. This is a very mixed up and complex story but I'll make it as easy as possible to read.

I had been swimming in the pool, and had lost both of my contacs. I didn't have my glasses so I was practically blind. After getting out and changing back into my casual clothes some girl pulled me back in, so rather than where wet clothes all night I was forced to make do with a towel. The reason I explain this is because when the officer's arrived they took one look at me and obviously assumed I was probably the most intoxicated person at the party simply because I was in a towel and couldn't see straight. Yes, I assure these excuses are 100% valid, I even have documentation citing the purchase of bran new contacs durring the week following the party. In any case, the officers involved handed out 20 or so M.I.P.s that night, including one to myself. When I appeared before the Justice of the peace I was giving the option of pleading guilty or not guilty and to have or wave the trial by jury. The judge himself explained to me his interpretation of what was considered "possession", and I was cleary not guilty according to him. So I plead not guilty and waved the trial by jury.

Yesterday morning I was scedueled for my pre-court arraignment. The conversation between me and the county attourney went almost exactly as such:

Him: "You're here regarding an MIP from the (person's name) party"
Me: "Yes sir"
Him: "Well, I've already talked to about twenty people about this and I'm pretty certain you were drinking... But I assume you have some story you'd like to tell, otherwise you wouldn't have plead not guilty."
Me: "Honestly sir I was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and I was in fact not legally in possession of alcohol."
Him"Yeah, I agree, you really may not have been in possession. However it's no trouble to me to call the officer that wrote the ticket and have the charges changed to a minor in consumption."
Me: "How could you charge me with consumption?""
Him: "Well, in the state of Texas all it takes to be prosecuted for a minor in consumption, is for the officer to testify that you were drunk."
Me: "But I would have had to have been in consumption to be guilty of that charge, correct."
Him: "So you're saying you weren't drinking?"
Me: "No sir, I was not."
Him: "Alright, we'll let you know by a mail correspondence what we're going to do, you're free to go."

Now from what I'm told had they decided to drop all charges they would have told me right then and there. But judging by the guy's attitude, which wasn't in the least bit as friendly as my own, I don't think that is what they intend.

So my questions are: Can they actually have the charges changed to an MIC be it this far after the incident? Is the officer's testimony all that is really needed to prosecute me? How valid is the testimony of these twenty some odd other "witnesses" that I'm sure were actually pretty drunk themselves?

Great story and I'll take your word for it that it was true. Swimming without a bathing suit... lost your contacts... talk about wrong place wrong time.

The answers to most of your questions are yes but with a catch -- they can convict you on circumstantial evidence but the key at your trial was to ensure that all the questions were asked that would substantiate the charges. The prosecution must bear the burden of proving by a preponerance of the evidence (50.1% v. 49.9%) that you were guilty of all the elements of the crime. Thus there must have been some connection with you and the consumption of alcohol, e.g. you walked in dizzying fashion, breath smelled of alcohol, non-responsive in answering intelligibly.

Regarding the veracity of the other witnesses, you have the right to cross examine. You SHOULD ask the reliability of their testimony. That is what you as a defendant need to do at trial and why, in many cases, having a good lawyer who knows what questions to ask is the answer.

Good luck to you and I hope this all works out in your favor!

 

[TenYearsBob]

Great story and I'll take your word for it that it was true. Swimming without a bathing suit... lost your contacts... talk about wrong place wrong time.

The answers to most of your questions are yes but with a catch -- they can convict you on circumstantial evidence but the key at your trial was to ensure that all the questions were asked that would substantiate the charges. The prosecution must bear the burden of proving by a preponerance of the evidence (50.1% v. 49.9%) that you were guilty of all the elements of the crime. Thus there must have been some connection with you and the consumption of alcohol, e.g. you walked in dizzying fashion, breath smelled of alcohol, non-responsive in answering intelligibly.

Regarding the veracity of the other witnesses, you have the right to cross examine. You SHOULD ask the reliability of their testimony. That is what you as a defendant need to do at trial and why, in many cases, having a good lawyer who knows what questions to ask is the answer.

Good luck to you and I hope this all works out in your favor!

I appreciate the quick responce. I find your advice to quite helpful. I'd like to explain a bit more to the story in relation to a point you've made that I may have otherwise never thought of as well as ask a couple more questions.

In regards to "Answering Intelligibly". I feel more than confident that this is something they may try to use against me. Upon arrival of the officer's, they began asking everyone their names and such. When mine came around the majority of the people tried to answer for me, I had to tell the officer my name three times before it was understood. Mind you I said it correctly 3 times obviously because as I said I was not intoxicated as were the numorous others being quite loud and un-intelligible. That I don't imagine will come up, however there is something else that I would now expect based on what you've told me. As I was standing in the front of the officer and he was writing my "order to appear before the judge" as he informed me it was not a "ticket", I told him all the information he asked of me, perfectly I might add. He then handed me the clip-board with said "order" attached to it and told me to sign it. I took a moment to reveiw the information he had written down, too assure nothing was incorrect considering my previous experience with the other officer. He had, in fact, written several things on the order incorrectly: Name, Address, Phone Number, Height and some other things I'm sure. I was about to inform him of his mistakes, but in a fit of rage he snatched the clip-board from me, threw it on the ground, spun me around and put me in hand-cuffs. He then told me to sit down on the bench until he finished dealing with the other people. After about a half-hour he returned and very sternly told me that I would either sign the order or I would be taken to jail. So naturally I just kept my mouth shut and signed it. Afterwards the officer's departed, having given NO-ONE any form of a sobriety test. The person who threw the party, also lived in the house, was also underage. He didn't even recieve a warning, and never saw a court-of-law. Not for this situation anyway.

I would most deffinately agree that it would be handy to have a lawyer. However I'm but a small town person working little more than minimum wage just to get by. So It's quite likely I will not be able to come by one. The reason I explained all that was to ask if those are useful things to explain before the judge that may help me or would I be wasting my time? Also, some tips on questions to cross examine the witnesses and or officer himself would be handy. Thanks ahead of time for anything help and advice you have.