Clyde Davis v. State of Indiana
13 N.E.3d 500
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Aug. 3–4, 2013, Clyde Davis was intoxicated at an apartment complex after an earlier disturbance; officer told him to leave earlier but made no arrest.
- Early Aug. 4 an officer found Davis in a grassy common area; Davis stumbled walking into the street near the patrol car, had bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, and slurred speech.
- Officer concluded Davis was “extremely intoxicated,” thought roads outside the complex were busy, poorly lit, and pedestrian-unfriendly, and feared Davis would be struck by a car if allowed to walk away; Davis was arrested for public intoxication.
- State charged Davis under the amended public-intoxication statute, which requires intoxication plus one of several aggravating conditions, including endangering one’s own life or another’s life.
- At trial the State argued endangerment; the trial court found Davis guilty and sentenced him. Davis appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence on endangerment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved "endangers the person’s life" or "endangers the life of another" under the amended public-intoxication statute | Davis’s stumbling near a road in a dark, busy, pedestrian-unfriendly area created a present danger to himself or others | No evidence of past or present conduct that actually endangered life; risk was speculative because Davis remained in the apartment complex common area and never approached the busy roads | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove present endangerment as required by the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Bockler v. State, 908 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence)
- Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sufficient endangerment where defendant remained in street and officers had to move him to avoid traffic)
- Stephens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (insufficient where intoxicated defendant sought police help and walked to a store to avoid an altercation)
- Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (reversal where defendant was merely standing roadside and speculation about future danger was insufficient)
- Christian v. State, 897 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (discussing elements of earlier public-intoxication statute)