Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited FILED
before any court except for the Feb 21 2012, 9:29 am
purpose of establishing the defense of
res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the CLERK
of the supreme court,
law of the case. court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
TIMOTHY J. BURNS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHAEL GENE WORDEN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIE JOSEPH, )
)
Appellant- Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1106-CR-570
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee- Plaintiff, )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Shatrese M. Flowers, Master Commissioner
Cause No. 49F19-1104-CM-25056
February 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ROBB, Chief Judge
Case Summary and Issue
Willie L. Joseph was convicted of public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor. He
appeals, raising the sole issue of whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to
sustain Joseph’s conviction of public intoxication. Concluding that sufficient evidence
was presented, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Officer Eric Huxley, employed by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department, was working in the downtown area on April 10, 2011. While patrolling the
area near Conseco Fieldhouse, he came across a group of people. Among the crowd, he
saw an injured man lying on the sidewalk bleeding from his right eye. After speaking to
the man, Officer Huxley crossed the street to speak with Joseph.
Joseph was leaning with his hand on a street sign and his head slightly drooped.
Joseph told Officer Huxley he had hit the man because the man had stolen one hundred
dollars from him. During the conversation, Officer Huxley noticed that Joseph had an
odor of alcohol, had slowed, slurred speech, and had trouble standing without leaning
against something. Officer Huxley later testified that, based on his experience as a police
officer and contact with intoxicated individuals, he was of the opinion that Joseph was
intoxicated.
The State charged Joseph with battery, a Class A misdemeanor, and public
intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor. On June 2, 2011, the State dismissed the battery
charge and Joseph was convicted of public intoxication following a bench trial. He was
sentenced to one hundred and eighty days at the Marion County Jail, with ninety days
suspended to probation. Joseph now appeals his conviction.
2
Discussion and Decision
A. Standard of Review
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence,
nor do we reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. Jones v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1095, 1097
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We view the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the
reasonable inferences therefrom and will affirm the conviction if there is substantial
evidence of probative value from which a reasonable fact-finder could find the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A conviction may be based upon circumstantial
evidence alone. Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Reversal is
appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences as to each
material element of the offense. Id.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Indiana Code section 7.1-5-1-3 states that “[i]t is a Class B misdemeanor for a
person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused
by the person’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance.” Intoxication is defined as being
under the influence of alcohol and/or a controlled substance “so that there is an impaired
condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.”
Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86. “Impairment can be established by evidence of (1) the
consumption of significant amount of alcohol; (2) impaired attention and reflexes; (3)
watery or bloodshot eyes; (4) the odor of alcohol on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; (6)
failure of field sobriety tests; (7) slurred speech.” Fought, 898 N.E.2d at 451. “With
respect to the sufficiency of the evidence upon the element of intoxication, it is
established that . . . a conviction may be sustained upon the sole testimony of the
3
arresting officer.” Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The
“purpose and spirit of the public intoxication statute is to prevent people from becoming
inebriated and then bothering and/or threatening the safety of other people in public
places.” Fought, 898 N.E.2d at 450.
Joseph concedes that he was in a public place when arrested. His sole contention
on appeal is that the evidence presented does not establish that he was intoxicated.
Officer Huxley testified that Joseph had the odor of alcohol emanating from his person,
had unsteady balance, and had to lean on objects to stand. Officer Huxley also observed
that Joseph had slow, slurred speech. Officer Huxley observed Joseph exhibit three of
the seven indicators from Fought and testified that he believed Joseph to be intoxicated.
Not all of the seven indicators must be present to sustain a conviction for public
intoxication.
“[A] conviction may be sustained upon the sole testimony of the arresting officer.”
Wright, 772 N.E.2d at 460. In addition, Joseph told Officer Huxley that he had hit the
man that was lying on the sidewalk. The purpose of the public intoxication statute is to
prevent people from becoming intoxicated and bothering or threatening the safety of
others while in a public place. Fought, 898 N.E.2d at 450. This is the type of situation
that the statute was meant to address.
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence
or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. Jones, 881 N.E.2d at 1097. From the evidence
before us, we conclude that the trial court was presented with sufficient evidence of
probative value to determine that Joseph was intoxicated in a public place. The
conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.
4
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph committed public intoxication, and
therefore we affirm.
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
5