Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 570

On Aug. 31, 2012, IndyGo employee/officer Brycen Garner found Rodregus Morgan asleep in a bus shelter, smelled alcohol, observed glassy bloodshot eyes, and saw Morgan sway when standing. Garner tapped Morgan, who said “Get off of me,” and initially resisted leaving but then complied. Garner arrested Morgan for public intoxication and added disorderly conduct/intimidation after Morgan yelled post-arrest.
Morgan pleaded not guilty, waived jury, and testified he has sleep apnea and had consumed alcohol the night before but did not recall being asked to leave.
Trial court convicted Morgan of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct; intimidation count was dismissed. Sentence: 180 days (suspended to probation) with credit for time served.
Court of Appeals held the term “annoys” in the public intoxication statute unconstitutionally vague and struck it, but affirmed the disorderly conduct conviction. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Indiana Supreme Court considered (1) whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague (focus on the term “annoys”), and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Morgan’s public intoxication conviction under the statute as construed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Morgan)	Held
Whether term “annoys” in Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4) is unconstitutionally vague	Statute gives adequate notice when read with an objective reasonable-person standard; courts routinely read reasonableness into similar statutes	“Annoys” is undefined and subjective; ordinary people disagree what conduct annoys, so statute fails to give fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement	Court upheld the statute: read a reasonable-person standard into “annoys,” so the statute is not unconstitutionally vague
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Morgan of public intoxication (harass/annoy/alarm another)	Evidence of intoxication plus refusal/agitational response to officer’s commands supported conviction	Conduct (sleeping, brief agitated response, minimal refusal, compliance) did not rise to level that would annoy a reasonable person; insufficient evidence	Court reversed public intoxication conviction: factual record did not show Morgan’s conduct would annoy a reasonable person, so evidence was insufficient

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) (precision not required; adopt a community/reasonableness standard to avoid vagueness)
Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988) (vagueness assessed as-applied; reasonable persons must be able to know conduct is proscribed)
Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for statutory constitutionality; statutes presumed constitutional)
Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (vagueness framework and burden on challenger)
State v. Bigbee, 292 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. 1973) (read-in reasonableness standard upheld against vagueness challenge)
Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (public intoxication interpreted with commonsense/reasonableness; one or few sips not intoxication)
Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (agitation alone during police contact insufficient to prove annoyance/disturbance)
Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. 1993) (objective reasonableness provides enforcement guidance)