Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
2 N.E.3d 702
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Tin Thang was arrested at an Indianapolis gas station on December 2, 2012 and charged with class B misdemeanor public intoxication; he was convicted after a bench trial and appeals challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
- Officer Michael Agresta observed Thang unsteady, smelled of alcohol, and had bloodshot eyes; the vehicle that arrived was registered to Thang and the keys were in his possession.
- The cashier at the gas station alerted the officer that the customer appeared intoxicated; the cashier did not testify at Thang’s bench trial.
- Indiana’s public intoxication statute was amended in 2012 to require proof of endangering life, breaching the peace, or alarming/annoying another person in addition to intoxication.
- The appellate standard of review for sufficiency claims requires examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and drawing reasonable inferences in support of conviction; reversal occurs only if no reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court concluded the evidence did not establish that Thang alarmed the cashier or endangered himself or others, and the conviction was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the evidence prove that Thang alarmed another person? | State argues the cashier was alarmed by Thang’s intoxication and alerted officers. | Thang contends there is no evidence the cashier was alarmed; alert alone is insufficient. | Insufficient to prove alarm. |
| Did the evidence prove Thang endangered himself or others by driving to the gas station? | State asserts intoxicated driving could have endangered the public. | Thang argues there is no proof he drove the vehicle to the station or endangered anyone. | Insufficient to prove endangerment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (upheld conviction where there was evidence of endangerment or breach/alarm)
- Stephens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (insufficient where intoxicated in public but no endangerment or alarm shown)
- Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (endangerment concept from OWI context applied to public intoxication discussion)