Jesse N. Cole v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION Jun 21 2016, 5:51 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Bryan L. Cook Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jesse N. Cole, June 21, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
32A04-1512-CR-2045
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stephenie Lemay-
Appellee-Plaintiff. Luken, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
32D05-1412-CM-1311
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1512-CR-2045 | June 21, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Jesse Cole (“Cole”) appeals his conviction by jury of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated (“OVWI”) as a Class A misdemeanor.1 He challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Concluding that the
evidence is sufficient to support this conviction, we affirm.
[2] Affirmed.
Issue
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Cole’s conviction
of OVWI.
Facts
[3] At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 10, 2014, Plainfield Police Department
Lieutenant Joseph Smock (“Lieutenant Smock”) was dispatched to a
motorcycle accident on an Interstate 70 West off-ramp. When Lieutenant
Smock arrived at the scene, he discovered Cole lying in a ravine 100 feet from
the roadway. Lieutenant Smock also saw a motorcycle with its lights on lying
on its side. It was located 50 to 100 feet from Cole. Cole had severe facial
injuries and one of his eyes was swollen shut. Lieutenant Smock smelled a
“very strong odor of alcohol or intoxicating beverage coming from [Cole]” and
1
IND. CODE § 9-30-5-2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1512-CR-2045 | June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6
noticed that his open eye was bloodshot and glossy. (Tr. 74). Cole was
transported to IU Methodist Hospital.
[4] Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Smock went to the hospital with a search warrant
for a sample of Cole’s blood. A forensic nurse took a blood sample, and, at
approximately 3:30 a.m., Cole registered .24 gram of alcohol per one hundred
milliliters of his blood. On December 19, 2014, the State charged Cole with
OVWI as a Class A misdemeanor and operating a motor vehicle with an
alcohol concentration equivalent to at least 0.15 gram of alcohol per 210 liters
of the person’s breath or 100 milliliters of the person’s blood (“Operating Per Se
(.15)”) as a Class A misdemeanor. Thereafter, Cole filed a motion to suppress
the blood test results, which the trial court denied.
[5] At the November 2015 trial, Cole’s theory of defense appeared to be that
someone else was driving the motorcycle. Steve Carroll an investigator at the
Hendricks County Prosecutor’s Office testified that he had “charted the whole
path of the motorcycle” after the accident and had discovered that it had been
sold “out of country.” (Tr. 287). According to Carroll, the motorcycle was a
“crotch-rocket or sport bike,” which had passenger foot-pegs closer to the seat
than most motorcycles. (Tr. 296). Carroll explained that “for a tall person to
get on this motorcycle [as a passenger] would kind of be like a jockey riding a
race horse.” (Tr. 297).
[6] A jury convicted Cole of both charges. The trial court entered judgment of
conviction for OVWI as a Class A misdemeanor and sentenced Cole to 365
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1512-CR-2045 | June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6
days in the Hendricks County Jail with 363 days suspended and credit of one
day for one day served.2 (App. 25). Cole appeals.
Decision
[7] Cole argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his OVWI conviction.
Specifically, he contends that there is insufficient evidence that he was
intoxicated. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is
well settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We
will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is
sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the
verdict. Id. at 147.
[8] To convict Cole of Class A misdemeanor OVWI, the State was required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cole operated a vehicle while intoxicated
in a manner that endangered a person. See I.C. § 9-30-5-2(b). “Intoxicated”
2
Both the CCS and the trial court’s completed Judgment of Conviction, Sentencing Order, and Order of
Commitment reveal that the trial court entered judgment of conviction and a sentence only on the OVWI
conviction. The record of the proceedings does not include a transcript from the sentencing hearing because
Cole did not request it in his Notice of Appeal. Although not so stated, it appears that the trial court merged
the Operating Per Se (.15) conviction with the OVWI conviction. See Green v. State, 856 N.E.2d 703, 704
(Ind. 2006) (explaining that a merged offense for which a defendant is found guilty but on which there is
neither a judgment or sentence is unproblematic as far as double jeopardy is concerned)..
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1512-CR-2045 | June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6
means “being under the influence of . . . alcohol . . . so that there is an impaired
condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person’s
faculties. I.C. § 9-13-2-86(1). Impairment can be established by evidence of:
(1) the consumption of a 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; and (7) slurred speech.
Matlock v. State, 944 N.E.2d 936, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Proof of a person’s
blood alcohol content is not required to establish intoxication. Id. In addition,
OVWI convictions may be supported by circumstantial evidence. Kremer, 643
N.E.2d at 360.
[9] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that Lieutenant Smock noticed a
strong odor of alcohol emanating from Cole and that Cole had a watery and
bloodshot eye. In addition, Cole was found 100 feet from the roadway in a
ravine and 50 to 100 feet from the overturned motorcycle. From this evidence a
jury could reasonably infer that Cole had consumed alcohol and was impaired.
Accordingly, this evidence supports the jury’s finding that Cole was intoxicated
as well as Coles’ OVWI conviction.
[10] We further note that Cole’s argument that there is insufficient evidence that he
operated the motorcycle is nothing more than an invitation for us to reweigh
the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See
Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. First, the evidence reveals that Cole was the only
person found at the scene of the accident and that the motorcycle was a “crotch-
rocket,” making it difficult for passengers to ride. Further, none of the cases
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1512-CR-2045 | June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6
cited by Cole support his argument because they all concern a defendant who
left the scene of the accident. See Robinson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 518 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005) (Robinson was found 2-4 miles from the accident scene after it
occurred); Flanagan v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (Flanagan
was found walking toward a local convenience store after the accident); Floyd v.
State, 399 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (Floyd was found six blocks from
the scene of the accident after it occurred). There is sufficient evidence to
support Cole’s OVWI conviction.3
[11] Affirmed.
[12] Kirsch, J., and Riley, J., concur.
[1] 3
Cole also makes multiple challenges to the admission of the blood test evidence. Specifically,
he contends that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence because (1) the search warrant
for Cole’s blood was not supported by probable cause, (2) the police made material
misrepresentations in order to obtain the warrant; and (3) the State failed to establish a
foundation that the blood draw protocol was prepared by a physician. However, we need not
decide this issue because any error in the admission of the blood test evidence was harmless.
Error is harmless if it does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Littler v. State, 871
N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind. 2007). Harmlessness is ultimately a question of the likely impact of the
evidence on the jury. Id. Blood alcohol tests are not necessary to support a conviction for
operating a vehicle while intoxicated pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 9-30-5-2. Pickens v. State,
751 N.E.2d 331, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Where there is no statutory requirement of proof
of a particular blood-alcohol content above which a person is intoxicated, the State may prove
intoxication by a showing of impairment. Id. Here, the State met that burden with evidence
that amply supported the jury’s finding that Cole operated his vehicle while intoxicated. The
test results likely had no impact on the jury’s verdict, and under these circumstances, any error
in their admission was harmless. See Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016) (explaining that erroneous admission of Combs’ blood test results was harmless because
the evidence otherwise amply supported the jury’s finding that Combs operated his vehicle
while intoxicated and that test results likely had no impact on the jury’s verdict), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1512-CR-2045 | June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6