MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Jan 11 2017, 6:35 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine M. Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Zachary Poteet, January 11, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1606-CR-1196
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court.
The Honorable Ronnie Huerta,
State of Indiana, Commissioner.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49G19-1602-CM-7786
Barteau, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1196 January 11, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Zachary Poteet appeals his conviction of public intoxication, a Class B
1
misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Poteet raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the evidence is sufficient
to sustain his conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In the early morning hours of February 27, 2016, Officers Alexandra Lowcher
and Keith Cutcliff of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department were
dispatched to an apartment complex in Marion County to investigate a reported
assault. The officers encountered several individuals, including Poteet, outside
an apartment building. The officers arrested Poteet after interacting with him
and further investigating the scene.
[4] The State charged Poteet with two counts of public intoxication and several
other charges. At a bench trial, the State dismissed the other charges. The trial
court determined Poteet was guilty of one count of public intoxication and not
guilty of the other. This appeal followed.
1
Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3 (2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1196 January 11, 2017 Page 2 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[5] Poteet claims the State failed to prove all of the elements of the offense of public
intoxication. The State responds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the
judgment. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh
the evidence nor reexamine witness credibility. Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d
1174, 1181 (Ind. 2016). We consider only the evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the judgment. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when a
reasonable person would not be able to form inferences as to each material
element of the offense. Naas v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1151, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013).
[6] To obtain a conviction of public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor as
charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Poteet
(1) was found in a public place or a place of public resort (2) in a state of
intoxication (3) caused by the use of alcohol or a controlled substance (4) while
harassing, annoying, or alarming (5) the officers. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4).
Poteet focuses on the element of harassing, annoying, or alarming another
person, conceding that he was intoxicated in a public place. Whether a
defendant’s conduct rises to the level of being harassing, annoying, or alarming
is determined from the perspective of a reasonable person. See Morgan v. State,
22 N.E.3d 570, 577 (Ind. 2014).
[7] In Brown v. State, 12 N.E.3d 952, 954-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, a
panel of this Court concluded there was sufficient evidence that the defendant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1196 January 11, 2017 Page 3 of 6
harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person where the defendant ran into a
woman on the sidewalk and kept moving while she yelled at him. In Naas, 993
N.E.2d at 1153, a panel of this Court concluded there was sufficient evidence
that the defendant harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person where the
defendant was agitated and yelling, and he advanced toward other people in an
aggressive manner, causing them to back away. Finally, in Williams v. State,
989 N.E.2d 366, 370-71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), the defendant repeatedly refused
to comply with officers’ requests to get out of the street and was belligerent to
the officers, and this conduct was deemed sufficient to support a conviction for
public intoxication.
[8] By contrast, in Morgan, our Supreme Court determined there was insufficient
evidence that the defendant harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person
where he was sleeping in a bus stop and acted agitated when an officer
awakened him. 22 N.E.3d at 579. In addition, in Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d
879, 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), a panel of this Court reversed a conviction for
public intoxication, concluding the defendant’s cursing and arguing with a
companion “in a loud tone” while they sat in a car was insufficient proof that
he harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person.
[9] In the current case, Officers Lowcher and Cutcliff arrived at the apartment
complex in the early morning hours of March 27, 2016, to investigate a
reported assault. They saw Poteet walk around the side of a building and out of
their sight. Other people indicated that he had been involved in the situation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1196 January 11, 2017 Page 4 of 6
that had led to the police being called. Officer Lowcher followed Poteet around
the corner.
[10] Officer Lowcher noted that Poteet was not wearing shoes and his belt and pants
were undone. She asked him to walk toward her, and she “had to tell him to
stop. Cause [sic] he was kind of rushing on a little bit.” Tr. p. 23. His hands
were “clenched” and he seemed “aggressive.” Id. at 24. When Officer
Lowcher asked him why his pants were undone, Poteet said “he was attempting
to urinate on the side of the building.” Id. at 23. She handcuffed Poteet,
escorted him to the front of the building, and had him sit on a curb.
[11] Once Poteet was seated on the curb, he became “belligerent” and “insulting,
cursing the entire time.” Id. at 9. “He would ask [the officers] the same
questions over and over. And if he wasn’t happy with the answer he would
begin yelling and cursing.” Id. Poteet yelled loudly enough that the noise could
be heard across the parking lot. He was “rather confrontational” throughout
his encounter with the officers, displaying an “abusive attitude” and an
“argumentative nature.” Id. at 9, 11. He called the officers “very colorful
names” and “just was altogether uncooperative.” Id. at 23-24. The officers
arrested Poteet after further investigation inside the apartment building.
[12] The facts of Poteet’s case are closer to the circumstances in Brown, Naas, and
Williams than the circumstances in Morgan and Milam. Poteet moved toward
Officer Lowcher in an aggressive manner, much like the defendants in Naas and
Brown. In addition, Poteet verbally abused the officers, similar to the defendant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1196 January 11, 2017 Page 5 of 6
in Williams. The abuse was extensive and lasted for several minutes. This is
sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded beyond a
reasonable doubt that Poteet harassed, annoyed or alarmed the officers.
Conclusion
[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Poteet’s conviction of public intoxication.
[14] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1196 January 11, 2017 Page 6 of 6