David Sesay v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 116
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- At ~3:00 a.m., officer found Sesay next to a car that had its left tires in a 4–5 foot ditch; Sesay stood ~3–5 feet from the roadway, covered in mud and vomit, with odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes.
- Officer believed Sesay was highly intoxicated, could barely stand without assistance, and was concerned for his safety; officer arrested Sesay and seated him on a curb while awaiting transport; Sesay’s girlfriend arrived ~20 minutes after officer.
- Sesay was charged with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication under Ind. Code § 7.1‑5‑1‑3(a); the State tried the case on the theory that Sesay “endangered [his] life.”
- Trial court (bench) convicted and sentenced Sesay; on appeal he argued the evidence was insufficient to prove the endangerment element beyond mere intoxication.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory amendment history: post‑2012 public intoxication requires intoxication plus one of four conduct elements (endanger, endanger others, breach peace/imminent breach, or alarm/annoy/harass), and held that something more than mere intoxication is required to prove endangerment.
- Court reversed conviction, finding no evidence that Sesay’s conduct created actual endangerment beyond speculative risk from standing near the road.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence that Sesay "endangered his life" sufficed to convict for public intoxication | Standing several feet from road while highly intoxicated and unable to stand without assistance endangered his life (risk of falling into road or being hit) | Mere intoxication and passive standing near roadside do not show defendant’s conduct created actual endangerment; speculation is insufficient | Reversed: State failed to prove endangerment element; mere intoxication + standing near road insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. State, 997 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (reversal only when reasonable persons could not infer each element)
- Christian v. State, 897 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (pre‑amendment public intoxication required only intoxication in public)
- Moore v. State, 949 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. 2011) (affirming conviction of intoxicated passenger under prior statute; prompted legislative amendment)
- Holbert v. State, 996 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reversed conviction based on location/where conduct occurred under amended statute)
- Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (upheld conviction where defendant refused to leave street after a pedestrian was struck; active conduct created danger)
- Naas v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (upheld conviction under breach/alarm prongs where defendant acted aggressively toward others)
- Stephens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reversed where defendant sought police assistance and posed no danger to others)
- Morgan v. State, 4 N.E.3d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (held "annoys another" prong unconstitutionally vague)
- Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (post‑amendment OWI jurisprudence: intoxication alone insufficient to prove endangerment)
- Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (reversed Class A OWI where no evidence of erratic driving; intoxication alone insufficient)