Shelly Watson v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
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:
TIMOTHY J. BURNS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JAMES B. MARTIN
FILED
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dec 17 2012, 9:25 am
IN THE CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
SHELLY WATSON, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A04-1204-CR-204
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Teresa Hall, Commissioner
Cause No. 49F10-1106-CM-039842
December 17, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ROBB, Chief Judge
Case Summary and Issue
Shelly Watson appeals her conviction for public intoxication, a Class B
misdemeanor. Watson raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether sufficient
evidence was presented to sustain her conviction for public intoxication. Concluding that
sufficient evidence was presented to support her conviction, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On June 4, 2011, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Jonathan Koers was
dispatched to respond to a reported domestic disturbance. When Officer Koers arrived at
the home, he found Watson standing in the middle of the street, belligerently screaming
at people in a yard nearby. Watson’s eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, her
breath smelled “highly” of alcohol, and she was unsteady on her feet. Transcript at 10.
Several witnesses were present and one stated that Watson had struck her in the head.
Officer Koers determined that Watson was intoxicated and placed her under arrest for
public intoxication and battery.
The State charged Watson with public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor. 1 The
trial court found Watson guilty of public intoxication and sentenced her to 180 days in
the Indiana Department of Correction with 178 days suspended and two days credit.
Watson was ordered by the court to attend six Alcoholics Anonymous classes and to pay
court costs of one hundred and sixty-five dollars, as well as a one dollar fine. Watson
now appeals her conviction.
1
The State also charged Watson with battery, a Class A misdemeanor, but dismissed this charge before
trial.
2
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In
reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court does not reweigh the evidence or
judge the credibility of the witnesses. Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924, 939 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009). We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and will affirm if the evidence and those
inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Id.Reversal is appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form
inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id. “[U]pon the element of
intoxication, it is established that a non-expert witness may offer an opinion upon
intoxication, and a conviction may be sustained upon the sole testimony of the arresting
officer.” Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
II. Conviction for Public Intoxication
To convict Watson of public intoxication, the State was required to prove that she
was “‘in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by [her]
use of alcohol.’” Woodson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 135, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting
Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3 (2005)), trans. denied. A person is in a state of intoxication if, due
to the use of alcohol, “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.
“[I]mpairment can be established by evidence of: (1) the consumption of
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.”
3
Woodson v. State, 966 N.E.2d at 142. “[A] person’s impairment is to be determined by
considering his capability as a whole, not component by component.” Id. at 142(concluding evidence of three of the seven indications of impairment was sufficient to
support a finding of impairment).
Watson does not challenge that she was in a public place. She challenges only the
sufficiency of the evidence showing that she was in a state of intoxication. Officer Koers
testified that at the time of the incident, Watson had bloodshot eyes, the odor of alcohol
on her breath, unsteady balance, and slurred speech. Meeting four of the seven criteria
for impairment, a reasonable person could infer that Watson was intoxicated. Watson’s
screaming and belligerent behavior serves as additional evidence of her intoxication.
Watson argues that Officer Koers’s testimony alone does not provide sufficient
evidence without a field sobriety or breathalyzer test. Watson also urges this court to
reweigh Officer Koers’s testimony against the testimony of Charles Smith, Watson’s ex-
boyfriend. Conviction for public intoxication does not rest or rely on sobriety or
breathalyzer tests and may be sustained solely based on the testimony of the arresting
officer. Wright, 772 N.E.2d at 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). It is also well settled that this
court will not reweigh evidence or review the credibility of witnesses when reviewing
sufficiency of the evidence. Lainhart, 916 N.E.2d at 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Because
Officer Koers’s testimony adequately establishes that Watson met four of the seven
criteria for impairment, the Court could reasonably infer that she was intoxicated at the
time of her arrest.
4
Conclusion
Sufficient evidence was offered to prove that Watson was in a state of intoxication
at the time of her arrest. Therefore, the trial court was correct in entering a judgment of
conviction against Watson for public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
5