Brice Hinton v. State of Indiana, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 55

Hinton was found intoxicated with a bow and arrow near a wooded trail by a school, with children nearby.
The incident occurred around 7:30 a.m. on April 29, 2015, on a public wooded area adjacent to a school campus.
Officer Howery observed the bow and arrow, noted Hinton’s intoxication, and questioned him about target shooting.
Hinton admitted targeting with the bow but acknowledged it was a bad time given nearby children; no arrow was released.
Hinton was charged with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication endangering a person under Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(2).
At a bench trial, Hinton argued he did not endanger anyone; the trial court found him guilty as charged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence shows endangerment to others.	State argues proximity and readiness created endangerment.	Hinton contends no actual endangerment occurred; no harm or imminent risk.	Sufficient evidence of endangerment shown; conviction affirmed.

Davis v. State, 13 N.E.3d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (endangerment requires more than speculative risk; no harm needed but risk near presence suffices)
Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standing near road with intoxication not endangering; speculative risk insufficient)
Stephens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (walking intoxicated toward store not endangering; no specific risk shown)
Weideman v. State, 890 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (defining endangerment using plain meaning when not statutorily defined)
Davis v. State (additional citation), 13 N.E.3d 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (clarifies endangerment includes potential harm to self or others)
Al-Saud v. State, 658 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. 1995) (brandishing weapon in a public area creates risk independent of actual injury)
Thomas Davis v. State, 13 N.E.3d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (emphasizes endangerment element does not require actual harm)