HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1701 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
CORY A. CORMANY
· CHARGE:
· AFFIANT:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-1701 CRIMINAL
APPEAL FROM SUMMARY:
(1) PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS
(2) PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS
PTL. DAVID TILDEN
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
The defendant, Cory Cormany, was arrested for public drunkenness on June 22, 1997
and July 26, 1997. He was charged with two counts of public drunkenness and found guilty by
a district justice. He subsequently appealed his conviction for a trial de novo pursuant to Rule
86(a) and (f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. We found the defendant guilty
on both counts·
The first incident occurred on June 22 behind the Biddle Mission Park. Police were
summoned to the railroad tracks that overlook a creek that runs behind the park. They had
received a report that someone was lying beside the creek and, upon arriving, they realized
that someone was Cory Cormany (having dealt with him earlier in the evening and on several
occasions in the past). They observed that the defendant was either passed out or asleep about
a foot away from the creek. The officers' then proceeded down a path towards the creek and,
upon reaching the defendant, they could smell an odor of alcohol about him. They helped the
defendant up because he had trouble standing and walked him back to the police car. He was
then placed under arrest for public drunkenness.
The second incident occurred on July 26 at the Molly Pitcher Hotel. According to the
desk clerk, the defendant came into the building with a brown bag in his hand, talked to some
97-1701 CRIMINAL
people, and then passed out on the floor beside the pay phone, partially blocking the hallway.
The clerk called the police and asked them to remove the defendant after unsuccessfully trying
to wake him up. When the police arrived, they woke the defendant and discovered that he had
a partially filled bottle of vodka in the brown bag. Mr. Cormany was then escorted out of the
building and place under arrest for public drunkenness.
A person is guilty of the summary offense of public drunkenness "if he appears in any
public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he may endanger
himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity." 18 Pa.C.S. Section
5505. A "public place" is not defined in Section 5505, but Section 5503(c) of the disorderly
conduct statute does define the word "public" as "affecting or likely to affect persons in a place
to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are
highways, transport facilities, school, prisons, apartment houses, places of business and
amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises open to the public." Id. Section 5503(c). One
purpose of the statute is "to deal with the problem of chronic alcoholics who voluntarily appear
on our streets, in our parks, in our neighborhoods, on a routine basis, shouting or cursing at
real or imagined foes, causing disruption or annoyance." Commonwealth v. Meyer, 288
Pa. Super. 61, 66, 431 A.2d 287, 290 (1981).
There are three elements to the offense of public drunkenness that the Commonwealth
must establish in order for the defendant to be found guilty. First, the defendant must be found
in a public place. Second, he must be manifestly under the influence of alcohol. Third, the
2
97-1701 CRIMINAL
defendant must be under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he may endanger himself,
other people, property, or annoy persons in his vicinity by being drunk.
We are satisfied that the Molly Pitcher Hotel is a public place. It is a place of business
and open to the public. Additionally, Biddle Mission Park is a public place to which the public
has access. We are also satisfied that Mr. Cormany was "manifestly under the influence of
alcohol." At the Molly Pitcher Hotel, police officers seized a bottle of vodka that the
defendant had carried in with him. Also, he was passed out on the floor and had an odor of
alcohol about him. When the defendant was found passed out or asleep in Biddle Mission Park
no alcohol was recovered. At trial, however, the defendant admitted to drinking beer. Police
officers also testified that he had an odor of alcohol on him and that he had trouble standing]
They also testified that they had seen the defendant earlier in the evening and that he seemed to
be under the influence of alcohol. The defendant's admission, coupled with the testimony of
the police, is sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that Mr. Cormany was under the
influence of alcohol when he was found in the park.
We also f'md that Mr. Cormany was under the influence of alcohol "to the degree that
1This case puts us in mind of a verse. We do not (of course) condone the standard
expressed.
Not drunk is he who from the floor
Can rise alone and still drink more;
But drunk is he who prostrate lies,
Without the power to drink or rise.
The Misfortunes of Elphin, Thomas Peacock c. 1829.
97-1701 CRIMINAL
he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity."
During the incident at the Molly Pitcher Hotel, the defendant was passed out partially blocking
the hallway. Due to the fact that the police had to be called to remove him and he was
blocking the way of the guests of the hotel, we find that the defendant was an annoyance. At
Biddle Mission Park, the defendant was lying close to a stream, and officers testified that he
was either passed out or asleep. This certainly was an annoyance to the police who had to be
called to remove him. More importantly, however, the defendant was a danger to himself
since he was intoxicated and so close to a body of water.
April q' ,1998
Office of District Attorney
Cory Cormany, Pro Se
: rim
Kev/?/A. Hess, J.