Kaleigh Hix v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 07 2015, 9:55 am
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
Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kaleigh Hix, October 7, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1502-CR-70
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Carl E. Van Dorn,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G07-1410-CM-49024
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Kaleigh Hix appeals her convictions for disorderly conduct and public
intoxication, both as Class B misdemeanors, following a bench trial. Hix
presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented
sufficient evidence to support her convictions. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 25, 2014, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Hix went to the Grove Sports
Bar in Beech Grove to pick up her friend Angela Beck. When Hix arrived, she
found Beck outside the bar engaged in a heated argument with a woman named
Courtney. Hix exited her vehicle, “grab[bed] Beck by [her] jacket,” and Hix
and Beck started towards the car. Tr. at 23. Jessica Portillo, a friend of
Courtney’s, came up behind Beck as they walked to the car, and Hix and
Portillo began to “fight in the middle of the street[.]” Id. at 8. Approximately
twenty people were in the street watching the fight, and the crowd blocked
traffic.
[3] Beech Grove Police Officer Nathan Rinks was driving by the bar when he saw
Hix and Portillo engaged in a physical altercation in the street. Officer Rinks
pulled up, exited his vehicle, and yelled at the women to stop fighting, but they
continued to fight. Officer Rinks then “separated them and put ‘em both in
handcuffs.” Id. at 8-9. Officers Rinks “could tell [Hix] had been drinking. She
had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, [and] her eyes were somewhat
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 5
glassy.” Id. at 10. Beech Grove Police Captain Kellen Malloy arrived to assist
Officer Rinks and observed that Hix was intoxicated.
[4] The State charged Hix with disorderly conduct and public intoxication, both as
Class B misdemeanors. The trial court found Hix guilty as charged and entered
judgment accordingly. The trial court sentenced Hix to ten days for each count,
all suspended, and the court ordered Hix to complete thirty-two hours of
community service. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Hix contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her
convictions. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is
well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh
the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a
conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved
for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence most
favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction unless
no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
[6] To convict Hix of disorderly conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was
required to prove that Hix recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engaged in
fighting or tumultuous conduct. Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1). Hix’s sole
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 5
contention on appeal is that the State did not present sufficient evidence to
show that she engaged in tumultuous conduct. Hix does not challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence to prove that she engaged in fighting. Because
Officer Rinks testified that he saw Hix fighting with Portillo, the evidence is
sufficient to support Hix’s conviction for disorderly conduct. See id.
[7] To convict Hix of public intoxication, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was
required to prove that Hix: was found in a public place; in a state of
intoxication caused by her use of alcohol; and either breached the peace or was
in imminent danger of breaching the peace. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3). On
appeal, Hix challenges the State’s evidence with respect to two of the elements
of the offense: whether she was intoxicated and whether she breached the
peace. But we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence on both
challenged elements.
[8] Indiana Code Section 9-13-2-86 defines intoxication in pertinent part as 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.” Impairment can
be established by evidence of the following: “(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; and
(6) slurred speech.” Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Here, Officer Rinks testified that he “could tell [Hix] had been drinking. She
had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, [and] her eyes were somewhat
glassy.” Tr. at 10. And Captain Malloy testified that Hix: had a strong odor of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 5
alcoholic beverage on her breath; had bloodshot and watery eyes; and had
slurred speech. The evidence was sufficient to show that Hix was intoxicated.
[9] A breach of the peace includes all violations of public peace, order or decorum.
Lemon v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1190, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “It is a violation or
disturbance of the public tranquility or order and includes breaking or
disturbing the public peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.”
Id. (quoting State v. Hart, 669 N.E.2d 762, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). Here,
Hix’s fight with Portillo in the middle of a public street was loud and drew a
crowd of approximately twenty people, which blocked traffic. The State
presented sufficient evidence to support Hix’s conviction for public
intoxication.
[10] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 5 of 5