Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not Jul 25 2013, 6:13 am be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DANIEL J. MOORE GREGORY F. ZOELLER Laszynski & Moore Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana ERIC P. BABBS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRADLEY T. STEIDLE, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 12A04-1212-CR-623 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE CLINTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Justin H. Hunter, Judge Cause No. 12D01-1106-FD-81
July 25, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ROBB, Chief Judge Case Summary and Issue
Bradley Steidle appeals his conviction of operating while intoxicated, a Class A
misdemeanor. Steidle raises the sole issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to
sustain his conviction. Concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish that he
operated a vehicle in a manner that endangered a person, we reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
In the early morning of June 3, 2011, Officer Robert Mitchell of the Clinton
County Sheriff’s Department observed that the vehicle Steidle was driving had only one
headlight working. As a result, he initiated a traffic stop. Upon approaching the vehicle,
Officer Mitchell noted the smell of alcohol coming from the vehicle. He also later
observed that Steidle had bloodshot and glossy eyes, slow manual dexterity, and that his
movements were somewhat staggered. Steidle told Officer Mitchell that he had
consumed five beers since seven o’clock the prior evening. Officer Mitchell
administered two field sobriety tests. Steidle failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test
and staggered and lost his balance both times he attempted to complete the walk and turn
test. He then refused to perform the one-legged stand test, as well as the chemical breath
test. Steidle was placed under arrest and transported to the Sheriff’s Department, where
he once again refused to take a chemical test. After a jury trial, Steidle was convicted of
operating while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor and found guilty of two
infractions—improper head lamps and driving while suspended.1 He was sentenced
accordingly, and this appeal followed. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
1 Initially, Steidle was also charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance due to some prescription pills found in the vehicle, but those charges were dismissed prior to trial. 2 Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is well-settled. We do not reweigh
the evidence or assess witness credibility for ourselves. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855,
864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Id. It is 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. Id. We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable finder of fact could find the elements of a crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Steidle was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A
misdemeanor. Thus, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
operated a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person. See Ind.
Code § 9-30-5-2(b).2 Steidle contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he
was either intoxicated or that his operation of a vehicle endangered a person.
A. Intoxication
We first address Steidle’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove
that he was intoxicated. Intoxication is defined as being “under the influence of (1)
alcohol . . . so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of
2 The lesser included offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor does not require proof that the defendant operated a vehicle in a manner that endangered a person. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5- 2(a). 3 normal control of a person’s faculties.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86. Impairment can be
established by presenting evidence of the following: “(1) the consumption of significant
amounts 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;
(7) slurred speech.” Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting
Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).
Here, Officer Mitchell testified that he noted the smell of alcohol coming from the
vehicle, and that he observed that Steidle had bloodshot and glossy eyes, slow manual
dexterity, and somewhat staggered movements. Steidle also failed one field sobriety test
and was unable to complete another. The jury could have also considered Steidle’s
refusal of a chemical test as evidence of intoxication. See Ham v. State, 826 N.E.2d 640,
642 (Ind. 2005) (“Whether a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test is evidence
of intoxication or merely that the defendant refused to take the test is for the lawyers to
argue and the jury to decide.”). Finally, Steidle testified at trial that he had consumed a
bucket of five beer bottles that night. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the
State’s burden of proving that Steidle was intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steidle’s argument that there were significant errors and inconsistencies in Officer
Mitchell’s testimony is simply an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and assess the
credibility of the witnesses, which we cannot do on appeal.
B. Endangerment
Having concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Steidle was
operating while intoxicated, we next address whether the evidence was sufficient to prove
4 that he operated his vehicle in a manner that endangered a person. To sustain a
conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor, the State
is required to submit proof of endangerment that goes beyond proof of mere intoxication.
Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), adopted and incorporated by
reference by 929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010). Endangerment can be proven by evidence
showing that the defendant’s condition or operating manner could have endangered any
person, including the public, the police, or the defendant himself. Dorsett v. State, 921
N.E.2d 529, 532 (Ind.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not Jul 25 2013, 6:13 am be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DANIEL J. MOORE GREGORY F. ZOELLER Laszynski & Moore Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana ERIC P. BABBS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRADLEY T. STEIDLE, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 12A04-1212-CR-623 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE CLINTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Justin H. Hunter, Judge Cause No. 12D01-1106-FD-81
July 25, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ROBB, Chief Judge Case Summary and Issue
Bradley Steidle appeals his conviction of operating while intoxicated, a Class A
misdemeanor. Steidle raises the sole issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to
sustain his conviction. Concluding the evidence was insufficient to establish that he
operated a vehicle in a manner that endangered a person, we reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
In the early morning of June 3, 2011, Officer Robert Mitchell of the Clinton
County Sheriff’s Department observed that the vehicle Steidle was driving had only one
headlight working. As a result, he initiated a traffic stop. Upon approaching the vehicle,
Officer Mitchell noted the smell of alcohol coming from the vehicle. He also later
observed that Steidle had bloodshot and glossy eyes, slow manual dexterity, and that his
movements were somewhat staggered. Steidle told Officer Mitchell that he had
consumed five beers since seven o’clock the prior evening. Officer Mitchell
administered two field sobriety tests. Steidle failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test
and staggered and lost his balance both times he attempted to complete the walk and turn
test. He then refused to perform the one-legged stand test, as well as the chemical breath
test. Steidle was placed under arrest and transported to the Sheriff’s Department, where
he once again refused to take a chemical test. After a jury trial, Steidle was convicted of
operating while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor and found guilty of two
infractions—improper head lamps and driving while suspended.1 He was sentenced
accordingly, and this appeal followed. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
1 Initially, Steidle was also charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance due to some prescription pills found in the vehicle, but those charges were dismissed prior to trial. 2 Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is well-settled. We do not reweigh
the evidence or assess witness credibility for ourselves. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855,
864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Id. It is 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. Id. We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable finder of fact could find the elements of a crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Steidle was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A
misdemeanor. Thus, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
operated a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person. See Ind.
Code § 9-30-5-2(b).2 Steidle contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he
was either intoxicated or that his operation of a vehicle endangered a person.
A. Intoxication
We first address Steidle’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove
that he was intoxicated. Intoxication is defined as being “under the influence of (1)
alcohol . . . so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of
2 The lesser included offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor does not require proof that the defendant operated a vehicle in a manner that endangered a person. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5- 2(a). 3 normal control of a person’s faculties.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86. Impairment can be
established by presenting evidence of the following: “(1) the consumption of significant
amounts 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;
(7) slurred speech.” Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting
Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).
Here, Officer Mitchell testified that he noted the smell of alcohol coming from the
vehicle, and that he observed that Steidle had bloodshot and glossy eyes, slow manual
dexterity, and somewhat staggered movements. Steidle also failed one field sobriety test
and was unable to complete another. The jury could have also considered Steidle’s
refusal of a chemical test as evidence of intoxication. See Ham v. State, 826 N.E.2d 640,
642 (Ind. 2005) (“Whether a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test is evidence
of intoxication or merely that the defendant refused to take the test is for the lawyers to
argue and the jury to decide.”). Finally, Steidle testified at trial that he had consumed a
bucket of five beer bottles that night. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the
State’s burden of proving that Steidle was intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steidle’s argument that there were significant errors and inconsistencies in Officer
Mitchell’s testimony is simply an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and assess the
credibility of the witnesses, which we cannot do on appeal.
B. Endangerment
Having concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Steidle was
operating while intoxicated, we next address whether the evidence was sufficient to prove
4 that he operated his vehicle in a manner that endangered a person. To sustain a
conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class A misdemeanor, the State
is required to submit proof of endangerment that goes beyond proof of mere intoxication.
Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), adopted and incorporated by
reference by 929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010). Endangerment can be proven by evidence
showing that the defendant’s condition or operating manner could have endangered any
person, including the public, the police, or the defendant himself. Dorsett v. State, 921
N.E.2d 529, 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Here, Officer Mitchell conducted a traffic stop of Steidle’s vehicle due to a
malfunctioning headlight, and there was no evidence of unsafe or erratic driving. Thus,
this case is unlike Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans.
denied, where the court held that evidence of driving ten miles per hour over the speed
limit without the headlights on was sufficient to establish that the defendant’s
intoxication “resulted in unsafe driving practices,” but akin to Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 382,
where the traffic stop was based on a non-illuminated license place and this court held—
in an opinion approved and incorporated by reference by our supreme court—that there
was no evidence of endangerment. The State argues that evidence Steidle was driving in
the middle of the night with one headlight out and while talking on the phone established
endangerment. An equipment malfunction and speaking on a cell phone, however, are
not a function of being intoxicated, and are not sufficient evidence that Steidle operated
his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to establish the
endangerment element of a conviction for operating while intoxicated as a Class A
misdemeanor. See Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 382 n.2 (stating that the defendant’s slow 5 response to the officer’s activation of his emergency lights was “not equivalent to
dangerous driving” and therefore was not sufficient evidence of endangerment). We
therefore reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate Steidle’s Class
A misdemeanor conviction and sentence and enter a judgment and an appropriate
sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.
Conclusion
The evidence was sufficient to prove intoxication but insufficient to establish
endangerment. We therefore reverse Steidle’s Class A misdemeanor conviction and
remand with instructions.
Reversed and remanded.
RILEY, J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur.