Vanderlinden v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-0905-CR-417.,49A02-0905-CR-417. |
| Citation | 918 N.E.2d 642 |
| Parties | Alisha VANDERLINDEN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Elizabeth Gabig, Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Arturo Rodriguez, II, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Alisha Vanderlinden appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated ("OWI"). We affirm.
The single issue before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to support Vanderlinden's conviction.
The evidence most favorable to the conviction indicates that on February 12, 2009, Vanderlinden was driving her car in excess of the posted speed limit and was stopped by Indiana State Trooper Ahmad Hafez, who timed the speed of Vanderlinden's vehicle at fifty-one miles per hour in a thirty-five mile per hour zone. During the traffic stop, the officer noted the smell of alcohol on Vanderlinden's breath and redness in her eyes. After issuing a warning for speeding, the officer asked Vanderlinden if she had been drinking alcohol, and she admitted consuming some alcohol that evening but did not specify, nor did the officer clarify, how much.
Upon obtaining her consent, Trooper Hafez administered one field sobriety test to Vanderlinden, the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which she failed. A portable breath test also was administered. The test indicated the presence of alcohol but did not yield a quantifiable reading due to Vanderlinden's asthmatic condition. Because Vanderlinden was recovering from a sprained ankle and limping noticeably, the officer declined to conduct other standard sobriety tests. Vanderlinden was charged with OWI as a Class A misdemeanor and public intoxication as a Class C misdemeanor. On April 14, 2009, after a bench trial the court found Vanderlinden guilty on both counts and merged the public intoxication conviction with the OWI conviction. Vanderlinden now appeals.
Vanderlinden asserts that the trial court erred by finding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support a conviction for Class A misdemeanor OWI. When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1139 (Ind.2003). We may look only to the evidence most favorable to the judgment and reasonable inferences therefrom and will affirm if we conclude that evidence of probative value exists such that a reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the underlying crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Vanderlinden of OWI as a Class A misdemeanor, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Vanderlinden "operate[d] a vehicle while intoxicated ... in a manner that endangere[d] a person." Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2(b).
Vanderlinden asserts that the State failed to prove that she was intoxicated or that she endangered anyone while operating her vehicle. Indiana Code Section 9-13-2-86 defines intoxication in part as being under the influence of alcohol such "that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties." The State was required to establish that Vanderlinden was impaired, regardless of her blood alcohol content. Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). Impairment can be established by evidence of: (1) the consumption of a significant amount of alcohol; (2) impaired attention and reflexes; (3) watery or bloodshot eyes; (4) the odor of alcohol on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; (6) failure of field sobriety tests; and (7) slurred speech. Id.
The evidence presented by the State demonstrated that Vanderlinden admitted consuming some alcohol that evening, that the officer smelled alcohol on her breath during the traffic stop, that the officer noted her eyes appeared red, and that she failed the one field sobriety test administered by the officer. Although Vanderlinden argues that red eyes and the smell of alcohol are consistent with consumption of any amount of alcohol, when coupled with the failed field sobriety test, these facts provide sufficient evidence of intoxication. Vanderlinden's assertions to the contrary are an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
Vanderlinden also alleges that the State failed to prove the element of endangerment as necessary to elevate the conviction from Class C to Class A misdemeanor OWL The element of endangerment can be established by evidence showing that the defendant's condition or operating manner could have endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant. Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245, 1249 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citing Blinn v. State, 677 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind.Ct.App.1997)). Endangerment does not require that a person other than the defendant be in the path of the defendant's vehicle or in the same area to obtain a conviction. Id. at 1251 (citing State v. Krohn, 521 N.E.2d 374, 377 (Ind.Ct. App.1988)).
To prove endangerment, the State presented evidence that Vanderlinden was speeding and that she was intoxicated. The State carried its burden to prove intoxication. Nonetheless, the State cannot claim that this same evidence proves the additional element of endangerment. In 2001, the Legislature substantially altered the OWI statutes by redefining intoxication and establishing two separate misdemeanor classes for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. I.C. § 9-13-2-86; P.L. 175-2001 § 1 (eff. July 1, 2001); I.C. § 9-30-5-2; P.L. 175-2001 § 6 (eff. July 1, 2001). The effect of these changes was to remove the "endangerment" requirement from the general definition of intoxication and create the new offense of Class C misdemeanor OWI without an endangerment requirement. The statutes retained the Class A misdemeanor OWI offense, which requires a showing of endangerment. Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-2(b) now states, "An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person operates a vehicle in a manner that endangers a person." By definition the statute requires more than intoxication to prove endangerment.
To the extent that our decisions have suggested that a showing of intoxication without more is adequate to prove endangerment, the amended statutes supplant those holdings. For example, the State cites Slate v. State, 798 N.E.2d 510, 515 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), for the proposition that endangerment "indicates the level of impairment and the extent of lost faculties that must be shown to establish intoxication and to obtain a conviction." This definition of endangerment conflates it with intoxication. Moreover, Slate acknowledged that "under the pre 2001 statutory scheme, we have held that proof that the defendant's condition rendered operation of the vehicle unsafe is sufficient to establish the endangerment element of the offense." Id. (emphasis added) (citing State v. Rans, 739 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind.Ct. App.2000)). Moreover, Slate references Krohn and a line of cases that pre-date the 2001 statutory amendments for its assertion that endangerment can be established by showing that the defendant's condition (i.e., intoxication) could have endangered any person. See, e.g., Weaver v. State, 702 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thang v. State
...of intoxication and create the new offense of Class C misdemeanor OWI without an endangerment requirement.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied; see also Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478, 484 (Ind.Ct.App.2014). “By definition the statute requires more tha......
-
Gregory E. Staten v. State
... ... Ind.Code 913286. 4 By definition, however, Indiana Code Section 93052(b) requires more than intoxication to prove endangerment. Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 645 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied (2010). The majority cites Outlaw v. State for the proposition that [t]o prove endangerment, the State must prove that the defendant was operating the vehicle in a condition or manner that could have endangered any person, ... ...
-
Lee v. State
...or operating manner "could have endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant." Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. (emphasis added). Proof of endangerment goes beyond mere intoxication; there must be some independent e......
-
Kerr v. State Of Ind.
... ... The element of endangerment can be established by evidence showing that the defendant's condition or operating manner could have endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant. Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer denied. Endangerment does not require that a person other than the defendant be in the path of the defendant's vehiclePage 11or in the same area to obtain a conviction. Id. at 644-645. By definition, Indiana Code 9-30-5-2 requires more ... ...