Curtis v. State
937 N.E.2d 868
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Curtis was convicted of operating while intoxicated (OWI), a class C misdemeanor, after a bench trial.
- On April 17, 2009, at about 11:20 p.m., Officer Michael McHenry stopped Curtis for an observed wide turn in Elkhart Memorial, Indiana.
- The officer detected a light scent of burnt marijuana, Curtis's eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and Curtis fumbled retrieving documents.
- Curtis swayed beside the vehicle; odor of burnt marijuana remained on his clothing and a white film appeared on his mouth; he failed multiple field sobriety tests (walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand) and struggled to count aloud.
- A breath test yielded 0.0; a DRE (drug recognition evaluation) led the officer to conclude cannabis impairment; Curtis refused a blood test and was arrested.
- The trial court convicted Curtis of OWI as a class C misdemeanor; the court then addressed statutory interpretation of Indiana's OWI statutes and the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.]
- {"Note": "Procedural posture (bench trial, conviction, appeal) is germane to the decision."}
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports Curtis’s intoxication under IC 9-13-2-86. | Curtis argues the statute requires impairment of thought and action and loss of normal faculties. | Curtis contends impairment must be proven in a separate, element-by-element fashion. | Yes; impairment can be shown by overall evidence of impairment, not element-by-element. |
| Whether the OWI conviction requires separate proof of impairment of action, thought, and loss of control. | Curtis claims multiple specific impairments must be proven. | State contends impairment is established by behavior evidencing impairment as a whole. | Impairment is established by overall behaviors and traits, not strictly by three separate elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind.2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence: do not reweigh; consider probative evidence)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind.2009) (sufficiency review; substantial evidence required)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.2007) (statutory interpretation: may alter language to effect legislative intent; not rigid)
- Gatewood v. State, 921 N.E.2d 45 (Ind. Ct. App.2010) (impairment evidence may include multiple indicators of impairment)
- Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939 (Ind.Ct. App.1999) (lists indicators of impairment for OWI)