– Under the previous version of the statute, there was no third element. If you were intoxicated and in public you could be arrested. This resulted in some strange convictions.
– For example, people who drank too much and took a cab home could be arrested if the cab was pulled over because the cab was in a public place (on a public street).
– I saw one case where a defendant and his girlfriend were drinking and got into an argument. She kicked him out. Defendant went to his car and decided to sleep it off in the back seat since he could not go back to the residence and could not drive. In this case, the Trial judge found him not guilty on public policy, and the State did not appeal, but if the State had appealed, the State would have probably prevailed.
– Some of these cases started going to the Court of Appeals with mixed results. The Supreme Court then over ruled these cases, finding that the legislative intent was clear and that mere intoxication in a public place is sufficient for a conviction. The legislature responded by adding the third element. This was relatively recent and case law is still developing on this issue.
– Evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for public intoxication because, although defendant was intoxicated based on an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and unsteady gait, the evidence did not show that defendant either endangered himself or others, breached or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace, or harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person. Defendant was in a private place before calling police from a parking lot to remove himself from a dangerous situation at a residence. Stephens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
– Evidence in a prosecution for public intoxication did not show past or present conduct by defendant that amounted to endangerment of his or another’s life, as there was no evidence that defendant went anywhere near the busy, dangerous roads outside an apartment complex, there was no evidence that the road within the apartment complex presented a danger to him, and the argument that he was in danger of being struck by a car if he left the complex was merely speculative. Davis v. State, 13 N.E.3d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
– There was insufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for public intoxication because the State failed to prove that he was endangering his life. Defendant was standing peaceably several feet off the road beside a car, the officer did not see defendant in the roadway, nor did he see him fall, and there was nothing to indicate that defendant’s intoxication made it more likely that he would be hit by a car; it was his conduct and not the conduct of a passing motorist that was the relevant consideration. Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
– Evidence was insufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for public intoxication because defendant was asleep at a bus shelter, which was unlikely to annoy a reasonable person, and there were no other people at the bus shelter aside from defendant, his brother, and a police officer; although defendant was agitated after being approached by the police officer, the degree of agitation he expressed, standing alone, did not rise to the level that would annoy a reasonable person. Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570 (Ind. 2014).
– There was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for public intoxication. Defendant’s conduct of sitting in the passenger seat of a pulled-over car and arguing and attempting to avoid blame for throwing a bottle out of the window did not reach the level of disturbing the peace, harassment, annoyance, or alarm. Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
– Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for public intoxication because defendant had red and watery eyes, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and an odor of alcohol about his person; moreover, defendant was alarming others by walking toward them in an aggressive manner while yelling. Naas v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
– Evidence was sufficient to prove public intoxication because defendant harassed, annoyed, or alarmed a woman by bumping into her in his intoxicated state as defendant ran into the woman after walking out of a bar; the woman started screaming after defendant ran into her, but defendant continued walking and ignored an officer’s requests to stop; and defendant was entirely unaware of his surroundings. Brown v. State, 12 N.E.3d 952 (Ind. App. 2014).
DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
Mr cardella, was by far the best attorney, I’ve ever had, or dealt with my entire life.the communication is 2nd to none. I’ve had many attorneys thru my life for various needs and this was by far the easiest process I’ve had. These days most attorneys you have to call several times and when u reach or see them they seem to not pay attention to you or what you want, Jeff is not like the rest. Definitely hire Jeff cardella!!!
I found Jeff to be an excellent attorney. He is very reasonable and level headed, empathetic but not a pushover. He always answered our questions directly. Hiring him was a great decision. Highly recommend and would use his services again.
Jeff demonstrated a great moral and positive character while working on my nephew’s case. He communicated promptly with my family as the case progressed and was easily accessible. We appreciated his honesty regarding the different scenarios and possible outcomes of the case. We were honor to have him as our attorney. Please do not hesitate to retain him, he will work diligently on your family behalf. We respected the fact he does a lot of the leg work himself.
I was thoroughly impressed with the service at Jeff Cardella Law Offices. One of the things that distinguished Mr. Cardella from some of the other law practices that I called was the level of care and customer service that was attached to our conversation. I called expecting to speak to a receptionist and was connected directly to him. Mr. Cardella took a true consultative approach to make sure that my needs was addressed specifically to my situation. I highly recommend giving the Cardella office a call.
My experience with Mr. Jeff Cardella was a positive experience since our first consult. He was reassuring and very reliable. I would recommend his services to everyone!
Great experience, helped me beat an undeserved ticket and allowed me to focus my time on my studies instead of dealing with it all myself. Would recommend to anyone.