553 N.E.2d 1380 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1988
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, Kimberly Broughton, from her Clermont County Court conviction of disorderly conduct.
On December 6, 1987, a complaint was filed in the Clermont County Court alleging appellant, while voluntarily intoxicated earlier that day, "did engage in conduct likely to be offensive/cause inconvenience, annoyance [or] alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities *11 * * *." An affidavit filed along with the complaint by Deputy Larry S. Crooks, the arresting officer, alleged appellant, while extremely intoxicated, cursed, taunted, and challenged police officers and patrons of Vic's Brew and Cue, and persisted in that offensive conduct despite being warned on several occasions to desist.1
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to a bench trial on January 12, 1988. After hearing the evidence and the argument of counsel, the court found appellant guilty and fined her $20 and costs. This appeal followed.
In her brief, appellant lists a single assignment of error which states:
"The finding of guilty entered herein is contrary to law and/or against the manifest weight of the evidence."
In support of this single assignment of error, appellant provides three arguments. They are: (1) the complaint was defective, (2) the state failed to prove appellant engaged in conduct which was offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities, and (3) the state failed to prove appellant was voluntarily intoxicated.
Appellant's first argument is that the complaint against her is defective because it failed to allege the specific statutory subsection, i.e., either R.C.
The complaint sub judice alleged a violation of R.C.
Appellant next argues she should not have been convicted of disorderly conduct because there were no persons of ordinary sensibilities at Vic's Brew and Cue for her to offend. We find this claim irrelevant and misleading.2
The record before us shows that in addition to appellant, there were seven other persons at Vic's Brew and Cue when police arrived. Before these people, appellant undertook a course of conduct which included insulting the police, interfering with their investigation of the trouble call, and finally taking a drunken swing at someone.
Appellant reads R.C.
The record shows that appellant, while intoxicated and in the presence of two or more persons, engaged in conduct which was offensive or annoying to persons of ordinary sensibilities. It is the conduct which is offensive or annoying to persons of ordinary sensibilities during a state of intoxication that R.C.
Finally, appellant argues the state failed to prove she was "voluntarily" intoxicated.
R.C.
"No person, while voluntarily intoxicated shall do either of the following:
"(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive, or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if he were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have such effect on others[.]"
Our reading of this statute, the legislative comment connected with it, and Lorain v. Wright (1983),
Even if we were to assume arguendo that voluntary intoxication is an essential element of an R.C.
As to the first basis for our conclusion, the evidence before us shows that police found appellant inside a bar, sitting on a bar stool from which she kept falling, all the while bearing the classic indicia of intoxication. We deem this sufficient circumstantial evidence of intoxication to permit the trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was "voluntarily" intoxicated.
With respect to our second basis for our conclusion, we find R.C.
In view of R.C.
Having overruled all three of *13 appellant's arguments in support of her sole assignment of error, we overrule that assignment and affirm her conviction.
Judgment affirmed.
JONES, P.J., HENDRICKSON and KOEHLER, JJ., concur.
