Ruiz v. State

• Decision Date: 29 November 2017
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 10A05–1702–CR–311
• Citation: 88 N.E.3d 219
• Parties: Alan RUIZ, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

88 N.E.3d 219

Alan RUIZ, Appellant–Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 10A05–1702–CR–311

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed November 29, 2017

Attorney for Appellant : Justin B. Mills, Mills Law Office, Marengo, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee : Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Caryn N. Szyper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Alan Ruiz ("Ruiz") appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.¹ Ruiz argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because the evidence and reasonable inferences show that Ruiz was intoxicated in a public place and in imminent danger of breaching the peace, we affirm his conviction.

[2] We affirm.²

Issue

Whether sufficient evidence supports Ruiz's conviction.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that, during the morning hours of May 6, 2016, Ruiz and some friends, who all lived in the King Solomon apartments ("the apartments") in Clark County, were drinking alcohol while sitting at some picnic tables at a Rally's restaurant that was adjacent to the apartments. That day, within a two-hour window of time, officers from the Jeffersonville Police Department were dispatched to the apartments on three separate occasions for complaints regarding Ruiz.

[4] The first dispatch occurred at 1:17 p.m. and the complaint was that the "subject was yelling racial slurs at the caller" and "drinking vodka in the grass area at Rally's." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 31). The responding officers told Ruiz that he was "not allowed to be outside" and instructed him to go to and remain in his apartment. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27).

[5] The second dispatch call occurred, twenty-two minutes later, at 1:39 p.m. The complaint for this second call was that an "intoxicated subject" was in the hallway "causing a disturbance[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 31). The responding officers "advised [Ruiz] to stay in his apartment" and warned him that "if they received another call that he would be incarcerated." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 31).

[6] The third dispatch call occurred two hours later, at approximately 3:40 p.m., and this dispatch call was based on a complaint that an "intoxicated male subject" had been "creating a disturbance with some residents nearby there." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 9). Officer Alyssa Wright ("Officer Wright"), who responded to the call, was aware that this was the third dispatch to the apartment complex for complaints about Ruiz. Officer Wright had been given a specific description of the suspect and was informed that he was walking in a grassy area near the apartments and the Rally's restaurant.

[7] When Officer Wright arrived at the scene, she saw Ruiz walking in the grass near the Rally's and noticed that he was "swaying back and forth" and having "a lot of trouble keeping his balance." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10). A few of the apartment residents, who were approximately two hundred feet away from Ruiz, pointed toward Ruiz and yelled to inform the officer that "that was the guy [,]" who had "yell[ed] obscene things in their direction and to them." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 13). In response to the residents' pointing, Ruiz "start[ed] yelling at them." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14).

[8] When Officer Wright approached Ruiz to speak to him, she saw that he had "extremely red, glassy ... blood shot eyes" and noticed that his "speech was extremely slow and slurred." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10). She also noticed that Ruiz smelled of an alcoholic beverage and that he had a pint-sized bottle of vodka in his jeans pocket. Officer Wright gave Ruiz a portable breath test. Ruiz initially refused to give the officer his name. He was "furious" and had a "little attitude" with her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 28, 29). Based on Ruiz's intoxication and the circumstances, including the "first shift officers having gone out on him twice ... just two hours prior to [her dispatch] call [,]" Officer Wright ultimately arrested him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 13).

[9] The State charged Ruiz with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. The charging information alleged, in relevant part, that Ruiz had "either breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace" under INDIANA CODE § 7.1–5–1–3(a)(3). (App. Vol. 2 at 7).

[10] On January 9, 2017, the trial court held a bench trial. The State presented testimony from Officer Wright, who focused mainly on the facts regarding Ruiz's actions during the third dispatch to the apartments. After the State's presentation of evidence, Ruiz moved for an involuntary dismissal.³ Ruiz argued that the officer's testimony that she saw Ruiz yelling at the residents who had been pointing him out and her lack of testimony as to how long he yelled did not rise to the level of a breach of the peace. The trial court denied Ruiz's motion.

[11] Thereafter, Ruiz testified on his own behalf. Ruiz acknowledged that he had been drinking alcohol in the morning at the Rally's and that the police had come to the scene multiple times, given him a breathalyzer test, and told him to stay in his apartment. Ruiz further testified that he had "refused to listen to them" and left his apartment. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). He also testified that when Officer Wright had come to the scene, he had been "furious" and had "a little attitude" with her. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 28, 29).

[12] Thereafter, the State recalled Officer Wright to offer rebuttal testimony. The officer testified about the two dispatch calls and complaints about Ruiz "yelling racial slurs" and "causing a disturbance[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 31).

[13] During closing arguments, Ruiz's counsel contended that Officer Wright's direct observation of Ruiz's actions during the third dispatch call (i.e., yelling and being "aggravated with the officer") did not "rise to the level of breach of the peace." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). He argued that, at the time Officer Wright came to the scene, he "wasn't breaching the peace" and "wasn't in danger of ... breaching the peace[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Ruiz suggested that Officer Wright was required to witness him breaching the peace or being in danger of breaching the peace at the time she saw that he was intoxicated in a public place.

[14] The State argued in rebuttal that the evidence was sufficient to find Ruiz guilty of public intoxication. The State pointed out that Officer Wright, who had been "reasonably aware as to the prior conduct" of Ruiz, responded to "yet another call ... regarding the same defendant where upon the complaint [wa]s [that] he [wa]s breaching the peace" and found Ruiz "in a public place in a state of intoxication." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 34).

[15] The trial court found Ruiz guilty as charged. When entering its verdict, the trial court specifically addressed Ruiz's argument regarding the evidence of the breach of peace element as follows:

[Ruiz's counsel's] point is well taken uh as to the element of breaching the peace and being observed. Um, and with misdemeanors it, it is required basically that the officer see the offense taking place. However, the statute as charged says that it was either breaching the peace or an imminent danger of doing so. In this case[,] we've got a situation where I'm not in much doubt that Mr. Ruiz was intoxicated by his own testimony he was basically sitting on the picnic tables at Hardee's [sic] which is not only a public place but, a public place that was probably not designed for the residents of the adjacent apartment complex to sit and drink alcohol. Um and when the witness, when the officer showed up[,] there had been two other, two other previous calls. Now [sic] didn't have any personal knowledge of what happened but, she does show up and she knows there had been two other calls. There is some yelling going back and forth, uh and uh her observation would lead her to believe that Mr. Ruiz is intoxicated. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Mr. Ruiz was an imminent danger of breaching the peace if she didn't actually see him doing so in that instant. I'm going to find Mr. Ruiz guilty. I think the evidence supports that.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 34–35). The trial court imposed a six (6) month suspended sentence. Ruiz now appeals.⁴

Decision

[16] Ruiz argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder would find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Additionally, our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that "when determining whether the elements of an offense are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder may consider both the evidence and the resulting reasonable inferences." Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. 2014) (emphasis in original).

[17] "Indiana has historically recognized that the purpose of the public intoxication statute ‘is to protect the public from the annoyance and deleterious effects which may and do occur because of the presence of persons who are in an intoxicated condition[.]’ " Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570, 576 (Ind. 2014) (quoting State v. Sevier, 117 Ind. 338, 20 N.E. 245, 246–47 (1889) ). In 201...