Gerald Spaulding, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2016, 8:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gerald Spaulding, Sr., December 21, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1605-CR-1039
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Carol Ann Terzo,
Appellee-Plaintiff Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G12-1509-CM-31304
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Gerald Spaulding, Sr., appeals his conviction following a bench trial for class A
misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. His sole assertion on
appeal is that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] A little after midnight on September 3, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department Officer Evan Meyer was patrolling on Lafayette Road in
Indianapolis when he noticed in his rearview mirror that a pickup truck was
approaching his vehicle from behind. Officer Meyer was traveling at the speed
limit, which was thirty-five miles per hour, and he observed that the pickup was
traveling at a high rate of speed as it quickly caught up to his police vehicle. In
addition to the high rate of speed, Officer Meyer observed that the pickup truck
was weaving back and forth on the road. Officer Meyer pulled to the side of the
road so that the pickup truck could pass him, and then he pulled out behind the
truck and began following it. Officer Meyer again observed that the driver was
“moving from the fog lane to like the lane marker” and “was generally weaving
back and forth between the two lines.” Tr. at 9. After following the pickup
truck for approximately “half a mile,” Officer Meyer conducted a traffic stop.
Id.
[3] Officer Meyer approached the driver of the vehicle, who was later identified as
Spaulding, and explained why he had stopped him. Officer Meyer observed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6
that Spaulding “had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his person” and that
his eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Id. at 10. Spaulding told Officer
Meyer that he had consumed two beers at a strip club on his way home. Officer
Meyer administered three field sobriety tests to Spaulding. Spaulding passed
the horizontal Gaze nystagmus test, but failed the nine-step walk-and-turn test,
and the one-leg-stand test. Based upon his observations, Officer Meyer believed
that he had probable cause to request Spaulding to take a certified breath test.
Officer Meyer read the implied consent law to Spaulding, and Spaulding agreed
to take the breath test. Officer Meyer transported Spaulding to the northwest
district police headquarters and administered the test. The result of the test
indicated that Spaulding had a blood alcohol content of .138 grams per 210
liters of breath. Officer Meyer then arrested Spaulding. Further investigation
revealed that Spaulding’s driver’s license was suspended due to a prior
conviction within the last ten years.
[4] The State charged Spaulding with Count I, class A misdemeanor operating a
vehicle while intoxicated, Count II, class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle
with an ACE of .08 or more, and Count III, class A misdemeanor operating a
vehicle while suspended. Following a bench trial on March 9, 2016, the trial
court found Spaulding guilty of Counts I and II, and not guilty of Count III.
During sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions and entered judgment
of conviction only as to Count I. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[5] Spaulding contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495,
499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative
evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the
trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will
not disturb it. Id. at 500.
[6] To convict Spaulding of class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while
intoxicated, the State was required to prove that Spaulding operated a vehicle
while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-
2(b). The term “intoxicated” is defined as “under the influence of … (1)
alcohol … so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the
loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86.
[7] Spaulding first asserts that the State failed to prove that he was impaired.
Impairment can be proven based on 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.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918
N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied (2010). Here, Officer Meyer
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6
testified that Spaulding smelled of alcohol, had red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes,
and he failed two out of three field sobriety tests. This evidence was sufficient
to demonstrate that Spaulding was impaired. His alternative explanations for
why he smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and failed the tests are simply
invitations for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which
we cannot do.
[8] Spaulding also maintains that the State failed to prove that he operated his
vehicle in a manner that endangered a person. To prove endangerment, the
State was required to present evidence “showing that the defendant’s condition
or operating manner could have endangered any person, including the public,
the police, or the defendant.” Id. Although the State must submit proof of
endangerment that goes beyond mere intoxication, see Outlaw v. State, 929
N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010), expressly adopting Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009), endangerment does not require that “a person other than the
defendant be in the path of the defendant’s vehicle or in the same area to obtain
a conviction.” Vanderlinden, 918 N.E.2d. 644-45.
[9] The State clearly met its burden of proof here. The evidence demonstrated that
Spaulding drove his pickup truck at a high rate of speed while weaving back
and forth within the driving lane. Indeed, Officer Meyer’s vehicle was initially
directly in front of Spaulding’s vehicle and in harm’s way when Officer Meyer
first observed Spaulding driving in this manner. It was the trial court’s
prerogative, as the trier of fact, to conclude that this manner of operation could
have endangered any person, including the public, Officer Meyer, or Spaulding.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6
Spaulding’s assertions to the contrary are again simply requests for us to
reweigh the evidence, and we cannot. The State presented sufficient evidence
to support Spaulding’s conviction for class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle
while intoxicated. Therefore, we affirm his conviction.
[10] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6