Jeffrey S. Morris v. State of Indiana

FILED
Mar 07 2018, 6:41 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark Small Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffrey S. Morris, March 7, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
42A05-1709-CR-2059
v. Appeal from the Knox Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Ryan S.
Appellee-Plaintiff Johanningsmeier, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
42D02-1706-CM-515
May, Judge.
[1] Jeffrey S. Morris appeals his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public
intoxication. 1 Morris argues the State did not provide sufficient evidence to
1
Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3 (2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 42A05-1709-CR-2059 | March 7, 2018 Page 1 of 6
support his conviction. Because the State failed to provide evidence to
demonstrate Morris’s alleged intoxication was due to “alcohol or a controlled
substance,” Indiana Code section 7.1-5-1-3, as required by the statute defining
public intoxication, we reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 14, 2017 between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m., Vincennes Police Officer Robert
Hammond was dispatched to investigate a man wearing only underwear.
Upon arrival, Officer Hammond identified the individual as Morris. Morris
was in the roadway, wearing just underwear, sweating profusely, and
displaying signs of paranoia. Officer Hammond instructed Morris to remain
inside his house the rest of the day.
[3] Over the course of the next four hours, Officer Hammond responded to four
more calls regarding Morris. Each time Officer Hammond found Morris in the
same condition: wearing only underwear, sweating profusely, and acting
paranoid. The fifth time Officer Hammond responded to a call regarding
Morris, Morris was waiting in front of a house to retrieve his bicycle. Officer
Hammond arrested Morris for public intoxication.
[4] The State charged Morris with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. At
Morris’ bench trial, Officer Hammond testified he arrested Morris based on
paranoia, profuse sweating, and previous experiences with Morris where
Officer Hammond speculated Morris had been under the influence of bath salts.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 42A05-1709-CR-2059 | March 7, 2018 Page 2 of 6
Officer Hammond testified he believed Morris was “potentially under the
influence of bath salts.” (Tr. at 8.) In its decision, the trial court stated:
I think there are two main issues here today, one is intoxication
and then the other is whether there was breaching the peace. I’m
going to find that there was breaching the peace based on his
appearance as well as the officer’s observation of his behavior.
I'm also going to find that there was intoxication based on the
officer’s prior contact with, with Mr. Morris and what the officer
observed, especially paranoia and when compared to the past
contact. So I'm going to enter Guilty on the charge of Public
Intoxication as a Class B Misdemeanor.
(Id. at 26.) The trial court found Morris guilty of Class B misdemeanor public
intoxication and sentenced Morris to 180 days, with sixty executed and one
year on probation.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Morris argues the State provided insufficient evidence to convict him of public
intoxication. When considering the sufficiency of evidence, “a reviewing court
does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We must affirm “if the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could
have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 126 (internal citation omitted).
[6] To prove Morris committed Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, the State
had to present sufficient evidence Morris was: (1) in a public place, (2) in a state
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 42A05-1709-CR-2059 | March 7, 2018 Page 3 of 6
of intoxication from alcohol or a controlled substance, and (3) breached the
peace or was in imminent danger of doing so. See Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3)
(relevant elements of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication). Morris does
not challenge that Officer Hammond found him in a public place. Instead, he
challenges the State’s proof of his intoxication and of his breach or imminent
breach of the peace. We need address only the adequacy of the State’s proof of
Morris’ intoxication to reverse. See Clark v. State, 978 N.E.2d 1191, 1197 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2012) (“The State has an obligation to prove every element of a
charged crime.”), aff’d on reh’g 985 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[7] In Upp v. State, 808 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), Upp appealed his
conviction of public intoxication. Upp argued he could not be convicted of
public intoxication because his intoxication was caused by sniffing glue, which
is not a controlled substance. We held: “In the present case, the cause of
[Upp’s] intoxication was from sniffing glue. There was no evidence that his
intoxication was the result of the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as
defined by statute.” Id. at 707. We accordingly reversed Upp’s conviction of
public intoxication.
[8] Here, the State similarly failed to provide any evidence that Morris was
intoxicated on a controlled substance. 2 Officer Hammond described Morris as
2
There is no suggestion in the record that Morris consumed any alcohol. In fact, on cross-examination,
Morris’ counsel asked Officer Hammond a series of questions in which Officer Hammond denied that Morris
had smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, glassy or bloodshot eyes, or had an unsteady gait.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 42A05-1709-CR-2059 | March 7, 2018 Page 4 of 6
“profusely sweating . . . and acting paranoid,” (Tr. at 7), and testified he
believed Morris was “potentially under the influence of bath salts.” (Id. at 8.)
While bath salts can contain a controlled substance, see Elvers v. State, 22 N.E.3d
824, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“Elvers was in possession of nearly 1,000
different packages of spice and bath salt products, and of the samples submitted
to the State Police Lab, nearly all tested positive for a controlled substance.”),
our system of justice does not permit citizens to be convicted on a potential of
illegality. See Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)
(“speculation” is insufficient for proof of elements required for conviction),
trans. denied.
[9] To demonstrate Morris had been under the influence of a controlled substance,
the State could have provided the results of chemical tests on one of Morris’
bodily fluids. See Bryce v. State, 545 N.E.2d 1094, 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)
(urine test showed cocaine was in the subject’s system), trans. denied. The State
also could have qualified an officer as an expert witness based on the officer
having the specific training and experiences to form “rationally based
perceptions.” See Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 480-81(Ind. 2001) (officer
testified to experience and training), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1105 (2002).
However, Officer Hammond offered no testimony about his training with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 42A05-1709-CR-2059 | March 7, 2018 Page 5 of 6
regard to the effects of being under the influence of bath salts such that he could
have qualified as such an expert. 3
Conclusion
[10] Because the State failed to present more than speculation that Morris was under
the influence of a controlled substance, we conclude the evidence was
insufficient to prove Morris committed Class B misdemeanor public
intoxication, and we accordingly reverse Morris’ conviction.
Reversed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
3
Officer Hammond did testify that he had prior experience with Morris when Morris had taken bath salts,
but Officer Hammond also testified that Morris had denied being on bath salts on those prior occasions. As
Officer Hammond did not provide any proof that his prior experiences with Morris had occurred when
Morris had, in fact, been on bath salts, we fail to see the relevance of those experiences for proving the cause
of Morris’ behavior on the day at issue herein.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 42A05-1709-CR-2059 | March 7, 2018 Page 6 of 6