defendant had in the past perpetrated acts of family violence on his girlfriend. She canned him and about nine months later took up with a new winner. Former boyfriend shows up in afternoon, drunker than Cooter Brown (.339 BAC) and raising cain in the yard. G-f is in the yard with a friend who is leaving. G-f runs in to house and shuts the door. Cooter is pushing on the door and g-f is holding him out. Cooter steps back from the door and so does g-f . Cooter throws a plastic beer bottle (empty) past g-f. New b-f grabs a kitchen knife and charges out. Girlfriend gets between them, facing new b-f and grappling with him to keep him from stabbing Cooter. New b-f (def.) swings under her arm and under Cooter's ribcage straight to the heart. Def. is hoping for charges on self and third person defense. How does the def's knowledge of the previous family violence assaults (g-f told him of some) fit with 38.36? EVERYONE says that def had no fear of Cooter.

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 08-29-06 at .]

For a check on who is "Cooter Brown", click here.

What BAC officially qualifies? (I know you pointed out at BAC over .30) Is there a standard that Cooter keeps?

I've spent dozens of hours over the past five or so years trying to find the origin of "Cooter Brown," as a reference to a big drunk, with absolutely zero luck. Want to know the origin of "Hobson's Choice", "Pyrrhic victory", "Zipf's rule" or one hundred other such and google delivers. Cooter? All we know is that he had the "great man's failing." I will extend a bit and say I am confident the term originated in the South and probably the deep South.

Why did new BF not just stay in house? If he stayed in and not gone out and confronted Cooter, thereby drawing gilrfriend into situation, then sounds as if no one would be hurt.

What was the imminent threat with drunk
Cooter outside and new BF locked in house with girlfriend? How can new BF say he was defending girlfriend from anything if that was the situation?

Well, there you go trying to inject a little logic into a domestic violence situation!

(from mindlesscrap.com)
Q.: What is the origin of Cooter Brown as in "Drunk as Cooter Brown"? Was he a real person?
- Pete

A.: I'd never heard this expression until you sent it in. Apparently, a lot of people have been trying to track it down. This is according to Whistlin' Dixie: A Dictionary of Southern Expressions: "It means very drunk indeed. Who the proverbial Cooter Brown is no one seems to know, but this may have originally been a black expression from the Carolinas. 'In Texas we'd call him drunker than Cooter Brown.'"
Furthermore, according to Cassell's Dictionary of Slang, it originated in the South sometime between 1900 and the 1940s.

===========
(From cooterbrown.com)
Who was Cooter Brown? Folklore has it that he had family on both sides during the Civil War and he didn't want to fight for either side. So he got drunk, stayed drunk throughout the war years, and was not drafted. Now a persons intoxication is measured to his... "Drunk as Cooter Brown!" Please have a designated driver
===========

dogpile.com search engine has many more interesting links

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca Gibson:
What BAC officially qualifies? (I know you pointed out at BAC over .30) Is there a standard that Cooter keeps?

---

I think with Ben's facts he does, in fact, have a defendant that was drunker than Cooter Brown.

Perhaps a vote would be in order among the distinguished forum posters as to what BAC level would qualify as drunker than Cooter Brown. I'd say anything over .30 would do it.

What say you?

quote:

---

Perhaps a vote would be in order among the distinguished forum posters as to what BAC level would qualify as drunker than Cooter Brown. I'd say anything over .30 would do it.

---

My BAC would be nowhere near that high and I'd be rush-me-to-the-hospital-grade gutter hugging.

The interests of all parties concerned are best protected by careful analysis of the totality of the circumstances. For instance, a BAC level of .30 or higher certainly would suffice in most cases. But what of Ernest, the town drunk, who can blow a .32 upon awakening after two days of unconsciousness? And, while a .12 might not be sufficient or that impressive in most cases, it may pass muster when accompanied by pants-wetting. To aid this review, then, I propose that anything over .30 be taken as prima facie drunker than Cooter Brown, subject to rebuttal by competent evidence of long-term tolerance attained through habitual, liver-punishing drinking. On the other hand, any BAC lower than .30 that is coupled with any product of the urinary or gastrointestinal tract on the subject's clothing also qualifies. Noodling also is a prime indicator.

But then what of the sober Banjo-ist?

I thought it was "Cooder". Regardless, he is now called Door-nob.

In a murder case, 38.36 evidence has to be between the accused and the deceased. If new boyfriend (accused) and old boyfriend (deceased) never met, how can there be evidence admitted to support his theory? The intent of the legislature, with regard to family violence issues, has to be in the case of battered woman kills husband...don't you think?

Even if Defendant was to bring in evidence of that past abuse, I still don't see how there's any immediate threat that requires the use of force, much less deadly force. He shouldn't even be entitled to a self defense instruction. Seems kind of similar, from the defense of 3d Persons standpoint, to Morgan v. State, 545 sw2d 811. That should lead you on a merry, circular goose chase (but one which helped me avoid a self defense instruction earlier this year). Hope this helps.

The deputy ME described the victim as "an experienced drinker." The highest alcohol concentration I ever saw was a fellow who blew a .423. Priceless video.

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 08-29-06 at .]

in cases of justification where d raises self or third person defense, often the violent hx of the victim comes in to show his state of mind and to support the claim that he was the first aggressor if (1) the evidence of who is the FA is ambiguous or uncertain and (2) the proffered evidence clears up the ambiguity or explains the victim's actions. If it is clear who is the FA, the extraneous conduct is inadmissible as mere character conformity evidence.

Cooter is the FA in my scenario - (plastic/empty) bottle throwing. As b-f emerges from the house, Cooter backs up, never offering to strike g-f. She gets between them, protecting our drunk from b-f fileting knife. Looks like d counsel has settled down on def of 3d person and sudden passion if the worst happens.

Should previous hx of violence Cooter v g-f come in to the extent b-f is aware of it? He could not reasonable have had an apprehension for g-f's person or life under the facts could he?

Cooter Brown was the original bar ditch drunk.

Otis was probably the closest North Carolinian to Cooter Brown. Actually, I have seen his name spelled Kooder and Kooter. Of course Otis fairly passed Cooder's reputation when he spiked the water crock in the Mayberry jail just before the mayor came in.

Cooder is immortalized in song as well:

That old classic, "The Day I Jumped From Uncle Harvey's Plane"

"... John McClaughlin shook my hand and J.D. strapped me in the harness. Tildon brought a jug and passed it around. I took one look at the parachute and that airplane and that whiskey, and turned that bottle up and drank it down. I was drunker'n COOTER BROWN when they poured me in the plane, and the engine coughed and headed for sky, but I was SOBER AS A JUDGE by the time they opened up that door and I'd never known my heart to beat so loud...."