Stanley Harris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 11 2018, 9:07 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
CLERK
precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Abraham A. Navarro Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Chief Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Clark County Public Defender Office
Jesse R. Drum
Jeffersonville, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stanley Harris, April 11, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
10A04-1709-CR-2216
v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court
The Hon. Joseph P. Weber, Judge
State of Indiana, Trial Court Cause No.
10C03-1609-CM-1923
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1709-CR-2216 | April 11, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] In August of 2016, Indiana State Police Trooper James Ferguson stopped
Appellant-Defendant Stanley Harris after noticing Harris speeding and driving
erratically. Two open containers of alcohol were found in Harris’s vehicle, he
smelled of alcohol, he behaved unusually, his clothing was disheveled, and his
eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Despite Trooper Ferguson being unable to
administer field sobriety tests (“FSTs”) or obtain a sufficient breath sample
from Harris to analyze for alcohol, the State charged Harris with Class A
misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) endangering a
person, and the trial court found him guilty as charged. Harris contends that
the State produced insufficient evidence to establish that he intoxicated when
stopped. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Early in the morning of August 26, 2016, Trooper Ferguson encountered Harris
in Clark County driving a van seventy-one miles per hour in a thirty-five-miles-
per-hour zone. Trooper Ferguson observed Harris veer toward an interstate
exit, swerve back over two sets of lane dividers, and straddle the dashed lane
dividers. Based on his observations, Trooper Ferguson believed that the driver
of the van was impaired. After Trooper Ferguson activated his emergency
lights and siren, it took Harris approximately a minute to stop. When Harris
stopped, he swung open his door and started to exit the van, which was highly
unusual in Trooper Ferguson’s experience.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1709-CR-2216 | April 11, 2018 Page 2 of 6
[3] When Trooper Ferguson asked Harris if he had been drinking, Harris admitted
that he had. Trooper Ferguson noticed that Harris’s breath and body smelled
like alcohol. Harris’s shirt was unbuttoned, his clothing “unorganized[,]” and
his eyes bloodshot and glassy. Tr. Vol. II p. 20. Trooper Ferguson tried to
administer FSTs, but Harris claimed that he an “eye issue” caused by a head
injury, so Trooper Ferguson did not administer the horizontal gaze nystagmus
test. Trooper Ferguson did not administer the other FSTs because Harris also
claimed to have a back injury. After administering a portable breath test at the
scene, Trooper Ferguson took Harris into custody. An inventory of Harris’s
van revealed a partially consumed can of beer and a partially consumed “small
bottle of fireball brand liquor.” Tr. Vol. I p. 26–27. At the county jail, three
times Harris failed to provide a sufficient sample for the chemical breath test.
Based on Trooper Ferguson’s observations, Harris was booked for OWI.
[4] On September 7, 2016, the State charged Harris with Class A misdemeanor
OWI. After the State presented evidence at the bench trial held on September
26, 2017, Harris moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
Harris then testified on his own behalf. After presentation of the evidence, the
trial court found Harris guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year of
probation.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Harris contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed
verdict and that the State failed to produce evidence sufficient to sustain the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1709-CR-2216 | April 11, 2018 Page 3 of 6
trial court’s finding that he was intoxicated when Trooper Ferguson stopped
him. As for Harris’s claim related to his motion for directed verdict, Harris
presented evidence on his own behalf following the trial court’s denial of his
motion, he has waived the issue for appellate review and we treat this issue as
one of general insufficiency of the evidence. See Farris v. State, 753 N.E.2d 641,
647 (Ind. 2001).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting verdict. It is the
fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness
credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is
sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and
quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be
reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in
original). “We will not reweigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of
witnesses.” Heaton v. State, 483 N.E.2d 58, 59 (Ind. 1985).
[6] To convict Harris of Class A misdemeanor OWI, the State was required to
prove that he “operate[d] a vehicle while intoxicated … in a manner that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1709-CR-2216 | April 11, 2018 Page 4 of 6
endangers a person.” Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (2016). Harris challenges only the
sufficiency of the evidence tending to show intoxication. A person is
intoxicated if he is “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.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86. The State can prove impairment
“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.’” Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting
Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)), affirmed by 929
N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010).
[7] The State submitted ample evidence that Harris was impaired. Harris admitted
at the scene and at trial that he had been drinking; his breath and body smelled
like alcohol; and there were open, partially consumed containers of beer and
whiskey in his van. Harris’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his clothing
was disheveled. Moreover, Harris showed impaired attention and reflexes.
Even before Trooper Ferguson activated his lights and siren, Harris veered
toward an interstate exit before swerving back over across two sets of lane
dividers and straddling the dashed lane dividers. After Trooper Ferguson
activated his lights and siren, Harris took an inordinate amount of time to stop.
After Harris stopped, he swung open his van’s door and partially stepped out of
the van, which Trooper Ferguson testified was “highly unusual.” Tr. Vol. II p.
46. Harris could not perform any of the FSTs or provide a sufficient sample to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1709-CR-2216 | April 11, 2018 Page 5 of 6
administer a breath test. Trooper Ferguson testified that, based on his training
and experience, he believed that Harris was intoxicated. In light of this
evidence, we conclude that the trial court could have reasonably concluded
beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris was intoxicated. Harris’s argument
amounts to nothing more than a request to reweigh the evidence, which this
court will not do. See Farris, 753 N.E.2d at 647.
[8] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1709-CR-2216 | April 11, 2018 Page 6 of 6