Christopher Naas v. State of Indiana, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 387

On Sept. 20, 2012, Christopher Naas was involved in a disturbance at a Thornton’s gas station after a traffic incident; officers responded to a reported argument.
Officer Robert Fekkes observed Naas yelling, walking aggressively toward another male/female pair, and saw them back away.
Officer Fekkes noted signs of intoxication: red/watery eyes, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and odor of alcohol; a half-empty whiskey bottle was on the passenger floorboard.
Naas and a companion testified he was calm and entering the station to buy cigarettes and denied arguing.
The State charged Naas with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication under the amended Indiana statute requiring intoxication plus endangering, breaching the peace, or harassing/annoying/alarming others.
The bench trial court found Naas guilty, concluding his manner breached the peace and alarmed others; sentenced to four days’ jail.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence Naas was intoxicated?	Officer’s observations and alcohol bottle show intoxication.	Officer’s testimony that Naas was "calm" in custody undermines intoxication finding.	Yes — signs (red eyes, slurred speech, unsteady balance, odor) and officer training support intoxication.
Did Naas breach the peace or alarm others as required by amended statute?	Naas yelled and walked aggressively toward others, who backed away, showing alarm/breach.	Other parties were also yelling; backing away alone doesn’t necessarily show alarm or breach.	Yes — the court reasonably inferred the parties were alarmed by Naas’s aggressive conduct.
Were circumstantial facts sufficient to support conviction?	Circumstantial evidence (observations, bottle, behavior) suffices under Indiana law.	Argues evidence is insufficient as a whole.	Yes — circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences supported each element.
Does being calm when taken into custody negate intoxication?	Officer’s overall observations control; calmness at custody does not negate intoxication.	Calm demeanor suggests not intoxicated.	No — calmness at custody does not negate other indicia of impairment.

Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for sufficiency claims; consider evidence most favorable to the judgment)
Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (lists indicia that may establish intoxication, e.g., watery eyes, odor, slurred speech, unsteady balance)