MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jan 16 2019, 5:49 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew M. Kubacki Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Poge, Jr., January 16, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-758
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Carol Orbison,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G19-1712-CM-46771
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] Michael Poge, Jr. appeals his conviction for public intoxication, a Class B
misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue
[2] The sole issue on appeal is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to
prove that Poge endangered himself.
Facts
[3] In the early morning hours of December 2, 2017, a 911 caller reported a break-
in at an apartment complex located near the 4200 block of Meadows Drive, “a
busy street,” in Indianapolis. Tr. Vol. II p. 7. It was an extremely cold
morning. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Tiffany Rand
was dispatched to the scene. Outside one of the apartment buildings, Officer
Rand encountered Poge “[s]taggering all over the place” near the street. Id. at
8. A damaged fence surrounded the apartment building, which faced Meadows
Drive.
[4] Poge exhibited various signs of intoxication, including impaired and slurred
speech, and he could not stand, maintain his balance, or walk without
assistance. Poge was unable, for several minutes, to tell Officer Rand his name.
Poge was also unable to provide his address or to identify a person who could
come to the scene and take him home. Officer Rand placed Poge under arrest
for his own safety because
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 10
[Poge] had nowhere to go. He didn’t know his address. He
couldn’t walk by himself. And like I said it was a cold night. So,
I didn’t want him to get robbed, hit by a car, freeze to death.
Id. at 10.
[5] On December 4, 2017, the State charged Poge with public intoxication, a Class
B misdemeanor. At Poge’s bench trial on March 9, 2018, Officer Rand testified
to the foregoing facts. Also, the following colloquy ensued during direct
examination of Officer Rand:
Q Do you know what specific events occurred that led to the
911 call?
[Defense Counsel]: Objection. Hearsay.
[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I’m not asking for any spoken words
or anyone else’s words, I am asking for a ---
THE COURT: She can – she can testify as to what the 911 call
indicated as the reason that she was needed on that location.
[Prosecutor]: Thank you.
A It was a female caller stating that a black male was trying
to knock down her door.
Q And did you arrive at after that?
A Yes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 10
*****
Q Officer Rand, when you first arrived on scene, where was
[Poge], specifically?
A Standing outside the complainants [sic] building.
Id. at 8, 9-10. 1
[6] At the close of the evidence, the trial court found Poge guilty as charged. The
trial court sentenced Poge to one hundred and eighty days in the Department of
Correction and ordered the term suspended to probation, except for time
served. Poge now appeals.
Analysis
[7] Poge challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his conviction for
public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor. Specifically, Poge argues that the
State merely speculated as to future conduct that might occur and, thereby,
failed to present evidence that Poge “engaged in any conduct that endangered
his life beyond his intoxication.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6.
[8] When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither
reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204,
210 (Ind. 2016) (citing Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 84 (Ind. 1985), cert.
1
There is no evidence in the record that Poge was identified as the black male who attempted to break into
the 911 caller’s apartment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 4 of 10
denied). Instead, “we ‘consider only that evidence most favorable to the
judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.’” Id.
(quoting Bieghler, 481 N.E.2d at 84). “We will affirm the judgment if it is
supported by ‘substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some
conflict in that evidence.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler, 481 N.E.2d at 84); see also
McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018) (holding that, even though
there was conflicting evidence, it was “beside the point” because that argument
“misapprehend[s] our limited role as a reviewing court”). Further, “[w]e will
affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696
(Ind. 2017) (citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)).
[9] To prove that a defendant has committed public intoxication, the State must
establish the following:
(a) . . . [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 . . . , if the person:
(1) endangers the person’s life;
(2) endangers the life of another person;
(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the
peace; or
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 5 of 10
Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3. The State charged Poge under subsection Indiana Code
Section 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1). Poge argues the State presented no evidence that he
endangered his life.
[10] We addressed a similar argument in Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013). As Williams left a bar with a group of friends, a member of the
group was struck by a car. The injured person was incapacitated on the street,
and a crowd gathered around her. When responding police officers attempted
to clear the street for emergency vehicles, Williams refused to comply. The
officers observed a strong odor of alcohol about Williams’ person. Williams
had glassy and bloodshot eyes, his speech was slurred, and his balance was
unsteady. Williams became belligerent and aggressive with the officers; and, as
they escorted him from the street, Williams jerked his left arm away from an
officer and shoved a second officer’s hand off Williams’ right arm. In affirming
Williams’ conviction and finding sufficient evidence that he endangered himself
or the lives of others, a panel of this court cited the officers’ testimony that they
“believed that Williams was ‘an intoxicated person who was a danger to
himself.’” Williams, 989 N.E.2d at 370-71.
[11] Poge cites our holding in Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied, in support of his claim that the State’s evidence of endangerment was
speculative. In Sesay, a police officer observed Sesay standing on the passenger
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 6 of 10
side of a vehicle that was stuck in a drainage ditch. 2 Sesay was approximately
three to five feet off the roadway and did not pose a threat to passing or
approaching motorists. Sesay smelled of alcohol, had glassy and bloodshot
eyes, and had vomited on himself. Believing Sesay to be highly intoxicated, the
officer arrested Sesay for public intoxication because, in the officer’s view,
Sesay could not stand without assistance, the surrounding area was dark, and
Sesay could be struck by a car. Sesay was charged with, and subsequently
convicted of, public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor.
[12] On appeal, Sesay argued that the State failed to prove that he endangered his
life. We reversed, reasoning, in part, that:
. . . it is the conduct of the intoxicated person that must cause
the endangerment. One of the State’s justifications for the
conviction here is that Sesay could have been hit by a car as he
stood several feet from the side of the road. But even a sober
person standing alongside the road could be hit by a passing car if
the driver of that car was driving erratically or failing to pay
attention. When Officer Jones came upon Sesay, he was
standing near the road alongside a stopped car. Officer Jones
testified that Sesay had not and did not try to walk away from the
scene but that he did not think Sesay would have been able to
walk away because he could barely stand up without assistance.
Nonetheless, Officer Jones did not see Sesay in the roadway, nor
did he see him fall—or nearly fall, for that matter; he was just
afraid that he might. There is nothing to indicate that Sesay’s
intoxication made it more likely that he would be hit by a car,
2
The vehicle had been involved in an accident. Sesay was not the driver.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 7 of 10
and it is his conduct and not the conduct of a passing motorist
that is the relevant consideration.
Finally, speculation regarding things that could happen in the
future is not sufficient to prove the present crime of public
intoxication. This is not an attempt crime where the person can
take a substantial step toward committing public intoxication by
being intoxicated. Moreover, the statute says a person commits
public intoxication if he is in a public place in a state of
intoxication and if the person “endangers” his life, not if he
endangers or might endanger his life. Compare Ind. Code § 7.1-5-
1-3(a)(1) with Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3) (stating a person
commits public intoxication if he is in a public place in a state of
intoxication if he “breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of
breaching the peace”). If it is sufficient to speculate about all the
various things that might befall a person, then, again, the
legislature’s addition of endangerment as an element would be
rendered superfluous because there is virtually no scenario in
which a person in a public place would not be found guilty of
public intoxication for simply being intoxicated. Such a
construction would stretch the statute to an absurdity.
Id. at 485 (internal citations and footnotes omitted) (italics emphasis in
original, bold emphasis added).
[13] In the instant case, Officer Rand testified that Poge was staggering drunk
outside on a bitterly cold December night. Poge could not recall his address;
nor could Poge identify anyone who could drive him home. Officer Rand
testified that she arrested Poge “for his own safety” because she “didn’t want
him to . . . freeze to death.” App. Vol. II p. 12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 8 of 10
[14] Although we can understand Poge’s reliance on Sesay, his reliance is misplaced.
As the Sesay panel cautioned, “it is the conduct of the intoxicated person that
must cause the endangerment.” Sesay, 5 N.E.3d at 485. In Sesay, the police
officer arrested Sesay for public intoxication endangering himself because Sesay
could be struck by a car. In reversing Sesay’s conviction, we reasoned that
nothing about Sesay’s conduct posed a threat of harm to him, when police
encountered him standing a safe distance from the roadway, awaiting a ride.
See id. (“There is nothing to indicate that Sesay’s intoxication made it more
likely that he would be hit by a car, and it is his conduct and not the conduct of
a passing motorist that is the relevant consideration.”).
[15] In the instant case, which is more akin to Williams, Poge’s “conduct” that
caused the endangerment was his inability to recognize that the weather
conditions posed real danger. Poge could not provide his address or identify a
person who could pick him up and demonstrated his inability to care for
himself. Without Poge’s address or the identity of a person who could attend to
him, Officer Rand had no options to protect Poge from the danger that the
bitter cold and his intoxication created.
[16] Inasmuch as Poge’s intoxication overrode his instinct to urgently seek shelter
from the bitter cold, the extreme cold did not pose a merely speculative threat.
Thus, Officer Rand believed that Poge was “an intoxicated person who was a
danger to himself.” See Williams, 989 N.E.2d at 370-71. To the extent that
Poge asserts that Sesay warrants a different conclusion here, we must disagree.
Because a reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 9 of 10
beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude that the State presented sufficient
evidence to convict Poge. See Love, 73 N.E.3d at 696.
Conclusion
[17] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Poge’s conviction. We
affirm.
[18] Affirmed.
[19] Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-758 | January 16, 2019 Page 10 of 10