5-year legal fight over O’Doul’s beer (NM man convicted of open container in car)

The Albuquerque Journal ^ | June 27, 2013 | Steve Hansen

[CedarDave]

TUCUMCARI – A Tucumcari man’s five-year effort to be exonerated of charges for having an open container of O’Doul’s non-alcoholic beer in his car ran into a procedural hurdle Tuesday in 10th District Court.

Judge Albert Mitchell threw out Gary Southern’s motion to have his conviction for having an open container of an alcoholic beverage in his car set aside because it was based on a writ of coram nobis, a procedural device that has been abolished in New Mexico courts.

Mitchell then advised Southern that he had two options: He could appeal Mitchell’s decision of Tuesday or file a motion for a writ of habeus corpus with the court.

Southern contends since O’Doul’s contains less than one-half of 1 percent alcohol, it does not meet the statutory definition of “alcoholic beverage,” and its presence in an open container in an occupied passenger compartment would seem not to violate state law.

[CedarDave]

The quick reversal and dismissal of these charges should be automatic in a just society. However, Southern has decided to act as his own attorney and obviously has made some missteps along the way that has led to delays in his exoneration. He has now stated he will prepare a new writ of habeus corpus.

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)

[gov_bean_ counter]

Maybe at least this time he will consult with Legal Zoom...

[Ray76]

What? What’s wrong with the judge?

Judge Albert Mitchell, more like judge Asshle Maximus.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Pretty ridiculous. Listerine has more almost 50% more booze in it than that stuff, yet I don’t think he would have been in trouble if he has an open bottle of it in the car.

Either way, I never understood O’Douls. It’s like the Sanka of beer. Why drink it in the first place? What’s the point?

[lewislynn]

Southern has decided to act as his own attorney

That, in the eyes of judges/lawyers was his biggest crime.

[JaguarXKE]

You couldn’t get buzzed from O’Doul’s if you drank a case of the stuff!

[American in Israel]

The fact that a man cannot represent himself in a non-alcohol beer as an open container in a car is a perfect example of the Mockery of Justice our Justice system has become.

God is not amused I imagine.

[discostu]

Can you sell it to 16 year old? If not, it’s alcoholic, and he broke the law.

[FreedomPoster]

Oh, good God. If that’s the case, the law is an a**.

[discostu]

It’s a matter of consistency. It has alcohol, not much but some, if it’s enough alcohol to have the age limit applied then it’s enough alcohol to have the open container law applied. Pretty logical and easy, the ass here is the guy that thinks he should be a special case, he bought beer, and drank it in his car, it’s illegal, he knows it. He should stop wasting everybody’s time and pay the stupid fine already.

[TheThirdRuffian]

Orange juisce has more alcohol content. Seriously.

And, yes, a 10 year old can buy non-alcoholic beer.

[discostu]

Can they? Not anywhere I’ve seen, it’s always in the beer section, can’t be accessed during “blue” times, carded to buy. That’s really the crux of his case. If NM allows under 21s to buy ODoul’s it’s not alcohol, if they don’t pay the fine. Maybe he should hire a lawyer, this case wouldn’t take more than a month with a professional involved.

[FreedomPoster]

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

— Ralph Waldo Emerson

[discostu]

Consistency is what matters in law. It’s all about the same word have the same definition in all cases. Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol, same definition, same application. If product X is considered alcohol in one law then it’s alcohol in ALL laws. Period. Otherwise there’s no point in any of the laws.

[FreedomPoster]

I hope you are some day prosecuted for an open Listerine container by an anarcho-tyranny prone jurisdiction.

This is the adult version of the government grade school no-tolerance nonsense we read about here at Free Republic at least weekly during the school year.

[tumblindice]

The article says that he is representing himself, as is his right.
It is also his right, if he is suffering from appendicitis, to remove his own appendix.
In either case, the results are similar.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I thought Coram Nobis was the former fiddle player for Gaelic Storm

[discostu]

If I was driving around knocking back listerine I’d have much bigger problems than the law’s opinion. But kids can buy listerine, so I wouldn’t a problem there.

This is a simple matter of applying the same word the same way in multiple laws. Might even be in his favor, don’t know if ODouls can be sold to underage in NM. He should get himself a real lawyer, because that’s the whole case right there. If it can’t he should drop it because he can’t win, if it can a real lawyer would have won the case for him already. Sorry consistency in application of the law bugs you so much, but that’s on you for preferring things made up as we go along.

[muir_redwoods]

I buy Clausthaler, a much better non alcohol brew. The store cards everyone for beer but not for non-alcohol brews.