MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 10 2019, 5:32 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William R. Grimes, April 10, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1583
v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
77D01-1805-CM-328
Mathias, Judge.
[1] William R. Grimes (“Grimes”) appeals his conviction of Operating While
Intoxicated as a Class C Misdemeanor from the Sullivan Superior Court. He
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 1 of 10
argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove the charge beyond
a reasonable doubt.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On May 15, 2018, around 10:15 a.m., Lieutenant William Snead (“Lieutenant
Snead”) with the Sullivan County Sherriff’s Department observed Grimes
driving in his vehicle. Lieutenant Snead saw that the passenger side of the
windshield on Grimes’s vehicle was shattered and caved in. Lieutenant Snead
had stopped Grimes approximately two months earlier and had warned him
not to drive until he had fixed his windshield. Because Grimes was still driving
this vehicle and had not fixed the windshield, Lieutenant Snead activated his
emergency lights in order to initiate a traffic stop.
[4] Grimes put his arm out of the window in order to acknowledge Lieutenant
Snead; however, Grimes continued to drive. Lieutenant Snead pulled up next
to Grimes and told him to “pull over, pull over.” Tr. p. 9. However, Grimes
continued driving. After continuing to drive a bit more, Grimes eventually
pulled over into a nearby field. When Lieutenant Snead approached the vehicle,
he asked Grimes why it took so long for him to pull over. Grimes responded
that he was “just trying to get off the road.” Tr. p. 12. When asked about the
windshield, Grimes responded that he had not had time to get the windshield
fixed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 2 of 10
[5] Grimes provided Lieutenant Snead his driver’s license, and Lieutenant Snead
asked for Grimes’s registration. Grimes searched through his glove box and
handed the Lieutenant his insurance information. Lieutenant Snead explained
that he did not need insurance information and again asked Grimes for his
registration. Grimes searched his glove box for about thirty to forty more
seconds before producing his registration.
[6] The lieutenant, observing a screw driver on the dashboard, asked Grimes to
step out of his vehicle. He asked Grimes if he had any weapons on him, and
Grimes informed the Lieutenant that he had a knife on him and placed the
knife on the driver’s seat of the car. Lieutenant Snead noticed another knife on
Grimes and removed this second knife. He then conducted a pat-down for
weapons which did not produce any further weapons.
[7] Lieutenant Snead observed that Grimes was behaving differently than during
his previous interactions with Grimes. Specifically, Grimes was slow to respond
to the officer’s questions. He had a slow reaction speed in general, moving and
speaking slowly. Lieutenant Snead also observed that Grimes’s pupils were
constricted to the size of pinpoints as if a bright light was shining in his eyes
although Grimes was parked in the shade.
[8] Lieutenant Snead returned to his vehicle in order to request a second officer. He
also ran a check on Grimes’s license and registration. He then returned to
Grimes’s vehicle and administered field sobriety tests. He performed the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 3 of 10
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (“HGN”) test, the one-leg stand test, and the walk
and turn test.
[9] When Lieutenant Snead administers the walk and turn test, he observes to see if
the individual uses arms to balance, does not touch heel to toe, starts too early,
loses balance, steps off the line, or turns improperly. When Grimes performed
the walk and turn test, he stepped off the line three different times. He also
walked “in a big U” to turn around instead of keeping one foot on the ground
and pivoting to turn around. Tr. p. 17.
[10] During the one-leg stand test, the individual being tested is to stand with his or
her arms to their sides, “hold one leg up in the air, look at their foot, hold it up
about six inches and count to thirty by going one thousand one, one thousand
two, all the way to thirty.” Tr. p. 18. Grimes skipped a couple numbers when
counting to thirty, but Lieutenant Snead graded Grimes as passing this
particular test.
[11] When Lieutenant Snead administered the HGN test, he asked Grimes if he had
any problems with his eyes. Grimes indicated that he did not see well out of one
of his eyes; but he did not indicate that would be a problem for completing the
test. Lieutenant Snead observed a lack of “smooth pursuit,” and his eye showed
nystagmus before the forty-five degree onset where the eyes involuntarily
twitch. Tr. p. 16.
[12] The lieutenant scored Grimes as failing the walk and turn test and the HGN
test. After administering these tests, Lieutenant Snead began to read Grimes the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 4 of 10
implied consent warning in order to administer a chemical test. Grimes then
asked Lieutenant Snead, “well what if I would have had smoked marijuana a
couple days ago[? T]hat would be in my system.’” Tr. p. 21. After Lieutenant
Snead informed Grimes that smoking marijuana a couple days ago would not
have an effect on him at that moment, Grimes stated, “[w]ell, I’m not saying I
smoked marijuana two days ago.” Tr. p. 21.
[13] At some point during Lieutenant Snead’s interactions with Grimes, Deputy
Copeland arrived as back-up. Because Grimes was “argumentative” with
Lieutenant Snead regarding his decision to arrest him, Deputy Copeland also
performed field sobriety tests on Grimes. Lieutenant Snead observed, but did
not participate, in the second set of field sobriety tests. He remained by his
vehicle, away from the interactions between Deputy Copeland and Grimes.
[14] Deputy Copeland testified that upon arriving at the scene, he noticed the
cracked windshield and that Grimes’s eyes “‘look[ed] terrible’” Tr. p. 45. He
also observed his speech and movements to be slow compared to his prior
encounter with Grimes.1 In part because Grimes was complaining about
Lieutenant Snead’s administration of the field sobriety tests, Deputy Copeland
administered the HGN Test, the walk and turn test, and the one-leg stand test.
He observed that Grimes started the walk and turn test a bit early and with the
wrong foot. He also took ten steps instead of nine and missed placing his feet
1
Deputy Copeland was also present during the prior interaction when Lieutenant Snead issued Grimes a
warning for driving with a cracked windshield.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 5 of 10
heel to toe on a few steps. With respect to the second administration of the one-
leg stand test, Grimes started early and swayed a little bit but did not miss any
counting. Deputy Copeland administered the tests on the asphalt, and
Lieutenant Snead administered the tests on an area with gravel and dirt.
[15] Lieutenant Snead ask Grimes once again if he would submit to a chemical test.
When Grimes responded that he would not, Lieutenant Snead handcuffed
Grimes. Lieutenant Snead testified that he arrested Grimes for Operating While
Intoxicated, because his actions and movements were slow. His state of mind
was not consistent with his previous observations of Grimes. Moreover, Grimes
failed two of the three field sobriety tests administered, his pupils were
constricted, and he had difficulty pulling over when Lieutenant Snead initiated
the traffic stop.
[16] Grimes was then transported to the Sullivan County Jail. Here, Rick
Loudermilk, a parole agent, observed Grimes between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.
in a holding cell later that same day. When Loudermilk arrived at the cell,
Grimes was asleep on the floor. After Loudermilk woke up Grimes,
Loudermilk observed that Grimes appeared intoxicated. He specifically
observed that Grimes’s eyes were glazed over and that Grimes seemed slow to
respond and process the conversation. Loudermilk had had several interactions
with Grimes in the past, and he testified that he had never seen Grimes act in
the manner he had on the day in question.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 6 of 10
[17] Bobbie Pirtle, Grimes’s friend, was in the passenger seat the day Grimes was
arrested. She testified that she has known Grimes all of her life. She was with
him all morning. She testified she did not observe him taking any drugs or
substances. She also testified that she believes Grimes does not drink. She
agrees that Grimes was not understanding Lieutenant Snead’s commands and
was trying to help Grimes understand the commands until Lieutenant Snead
“told [her] to shut up.” Tr. p. 69. She stated she did not notice anything
unusual about his actions that morning. She also testified that in 2012, Snead
was in a car accident and his speech has been slower ever since.
[18] Faye Pirtle, grandmother to Grimes, also testified on behalf of Grimes. She also
stated that Grimes has had trouble with one of his eyes as a result of a previous
car accident. She stated she was driving by during the interactions between
Grimes and Lieutenant Snead. Lieutenant Snead motioned for her to continue
on down the road, but she called to Grimes, “are you okay?” Tr. p. 79. Faye
testified that Grimes seemed fine during that interaction.
[19] The trial court held a bench trial on June 1, 2018. After the bench trial, the trial
court found him guilty of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated and
sentenced him to sixty days executed. Grimes now appeals his conviction
Discussion and Decision
[20] Upon a challenge to a conviction based on the sufficiency of evidence to
support a conviction, a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge
the credibility of the witnesses. Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 7 of 10
2001). Appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170,
1173 (Ind. 2002). We “must affirm ‘if the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of
fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” McHenry v State,
820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (citing Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111–12
(Ind. 2000). A conviction may be based upon circumstantial evidence alone.
Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Reversal is
appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences
as to each material element of the offense. Id.
[21] In order to convict Grimes of his charge of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2. The
evidence is clear that Grimes was operating a motor vehicle, and Grimes does
not dispute that he was operating a motor vehicle. However, Grimes disputes
that the State met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that that he
was intoxicated. Grimes attributes his slow dexterity to a prior head injury,
poor vision in one eye, and feeling groggy from waking up shortly before the
traffic stop. “Intoxicated” is defined by the Indiana Code section 9-13-2-86 as:
under the influence of:
(1) alcohol;
(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 8 of 10
(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;
(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3;
(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1)
through (4); or
(6) any other substance, not including food and food
ingredients (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-20), tobacco (as
defined in IC 6-2.5-1-28), or a dietary supplement (as
defined in IC 6-2.5-1-16);
so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and
the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.
[22] “The State need not present separate proof of impairment of action, impairment
of thought, and loss of control of faculties to establish an individual’s
intoxication.” Woodson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 135, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans.
denied. An individual’s impairment is determined by considering his capability
as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of these
three abilities equals impairment. Id. “Evidence of the following can establish
impairment: (1) the consumption of significant amounts 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.” Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
(quoting Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 9 of 10
[23] Here, three officials who had prior encounters with Grimes testified that his
attention and processing were impaired. Deputy Copeland testified that, on the
day in question, Grimes’s eyes appeared “terrible.” Lieutenant Snead testified
that Grimes’s pupils appeared severely constricted even when in the shade.
Grimes was slow to pull over and had difficulty providing Lieutenant Snead
with his registration. Grimes failed two out of the three field sobriety tests
administered, unable to walk on the line. Several hours later, a parole agent
who also had prior interactions with Grimes observed him in the holding cell at
the jail. The parole agent also observed that Grimes appeared to be intoxicated
because his eyes were glazed over and he was slow to process the conversation
and the interactions between the two. Grimes’s friend admitted his processing
was slow that day but that he had an unspecified head injury in a car accident
in 2012. Grimes’s grandmother testified that he seemed fine when she asked
him a question as she drove by. Grimes’s request for this court to believe his
friend and grandmother is a request to judge credibility and reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do.
Conclusion
[24] The record in this matter contains sufficient evidence regarding Grimes’s
impairment and intoxication. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction for
operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
[25] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 10 of 10