From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Outlaw v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jun 24, 2010
929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010)

Summary

affirming this Court's rejection of State's argument that "evidence of 'intoxication' should be sufficient to prove 'endangerment'" under current version of Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2

Summary of this case from Joaquin v. State

Opinion

No. 49S02-1006-CR-328.

June 24, 2010.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Marion County, Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, J.

Barbara J. Simmons, Oldenburg, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.


On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-O904-CR-340


In 2001, the legislature established two separate misdemeanor classes for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Operating a vehicle while "intoxicated" is a Class C misdemeanor. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a) (2004). Operating a vehicle while intoxicated "in a manner that endangers a person" is a more serious Class A misdemeanor. See I.C. § 9-30-5-2(b) (2004).

Here, there was evidence Outlaw was intoxicated, including that he smelled of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred and he failed three field sobriety tests. The State concedes, however, there was no evidence that Outlaw operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Outlaw was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor and was sentenced to 365 days.

The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction on grounds that, although the State proved Outlaw was intoxicated, the State failed to present any evidence on the element of endangerment. See Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009).

The State has petitioned to transfer jurisdiction, arguing that evidence of "intoxication" should be sufficient to prove "endangerment" as was the case before the current version of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2. See Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 381-82. We conclude the Court of Appeals correctly rejected the State's argument for the reasons explained in its decision.

We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the opinion of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). The Class A misdemeanor conviction is reversed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Outlaw v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jun 24, 2010
929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010)

affirming this Court's rejection of State's argument that "evidence of 'intoxication' should be sufficient to prove 'endangerment'" under current version of Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2

Summary of this case from Joaquin v. State

In Outlaw, we acknowledged that prior decisions had found that a showing of intoxicated driving, without more, was adequate to prove endangerment. 918 N.E.2d at 382, expressly adopted by929 N.E.2d at 196.

Summary of this case from Thang v. State

In Outlaw, defendant was stopped for a license plate that was not illuminated rather than for any erratic or unlawful driving.

Summary of this case from Bueso v. State

providing that the defendant's slow response to the officer's activation of his emergency lights was "not equivalent to dangerous driving" and therefore was not sufficient evidence of endangerment

Summary of this case from Poortenga v. State
Case details for

Outlaw v. State

Case Details

Full title:Curtis OUTLAW, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jun 24, 2010

Citations

929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010)

Citing Cases

Joaquin v. State

[9] To the extent the instruction suggests that endangerment could be established by evidence of Joaquin's…

Thang v. State

See Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind.2007). In a rare departure from this general rule allowing…