Powell v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Criminal Law

392 U.S. 514 (1968)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawstatus crimesEighth Amendmentcruel and unusual punishmentpublic intoxicationalcoholismactus reusmens rea

Facts

Powell was arrested in December 1966 for being found intoxicated in a public place in violation of Texas Penal Code Article 477. At trial, a psychiatrist testified that Powell was a chronic alcoholic with a powerful compulsion to drink and loss of control once drinking began, but also admitted that when sober Powell knew right from wrong and that taking the first drink was a voluntary exercise of will. Powell testified he could not stop drinking once he started, but he also admitted that on the morning of trial he had one drink and then stopped. The trial court entered findings framing chronic alcoholism as a disease and Powell as a chronic alcoholic, but ruled that chronic alcoholism was not a legal defense.

Issue

Does the Eighth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibit Texas from criminally punishing a chronic alcoholic for being drunk in public on the theory that his intoxication and public appearance were compelled by his disease? More specifically, does Robinson v. California extend from punishment of status to punishment of this public conduct?

Rule

The Eighth Amendment, as construed in Robinson v. California, bars criminal punishment for a mere status, but does not on this record bar a State from punishing the act of being intoxicated in public. Robinson is limited to punishment of status and does not establish a general constitutional doctrine exempting conduct claimed to be involuntary or compelled, nor a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The legislature of Oregon enacts a statute making it a misdemeanor for any person to "be a chronic alcoholic" within the state. Naomi Kerr is convicted under the statute even though the prosecution offers no proof that she drank, appeared in public intoxicated, or engaged in any other conduct in Oregon.

Under the controlling Eighth Amendment rule, is Naomi's conviction constitutional?

Explanation. The governing distinction is between punishing status and punishing conduct. The majority understood Robinson to forbid criminal punishment of a mere status, while refusing to extend that principle to all conduct said to be compelled. A law making it a crime simply to be a chronic alcoholic punishes status itself and would fall on the forbidden side of that line.