Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
10 N.E.3d 1256
| Ind. | 2014Background
- On Dec. 2, 2012 Officer Agresta encountered Tin Thang at a gas station where Thang appeared very unsteady, had red/bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, and possessed his car keys.
- A vehicle had not been in the lot when the officer entered the restroom but was present when he exited; a license-plate check linked the car to Thang; no other person was at the station.
- Officer Agresta arrested Thang for Public Intoxication and ordered the car towed because no one else could take possession.
- Thang was convicted at a bench trial of Public Intoxication (class B misdemeanor) under Ind. Code § 7.1‑5‑1‑3(a) (2012), which requires, inter alia, that the intoxicated person "endangers" their own life or another's.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed for insufficiency of evidence; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether endangerment may be proved by reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thang) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the statutory element that the intoxicated person "endangered" self or others | The circumstantial facts (sudden presence of vehicle, keys on Thang, intoxication, no other persons) permit a reasonable inference that Thang drove to the gas station while intoxicated, thereby endangering life | The State presented no direct evidence he drove or endangered anyone; Moore forbids inferring presence on public streets without probative supporting evidence; mere intoxication is insufficient | Affirmed: a fact‑finder may draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence; here a reasonable trier of fact could infer Thang drove while intoxicated and thereby endangered life |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review: consider evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review limited to evidence supporting judgment and reasonable inferences)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (verdict may be based on reasonable inference from evidence)
- Outlaw v. State, 929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010) (adopting Court of Appeals decision that intoxication alone insufficient to prove endangerment for class A OWI)
- Moore v. State, 634 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (an inference that misconduct occurred on public property must be supported by probative evidence)
- Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (intoxication alone does not satisfy endangerment element for class A OWI)
- Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (interpreting post‑amendment public intoxication statute to require more than mere intoxication to prove endangerment)