Brian Bassett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 4, 2018
• Docket: 49A02-1710-CR-2212
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any May 04 2018, 9:05 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Rory Gallagher Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brian Bassett, May 4, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1710-CR-2212 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G07-1705-CM-18827

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] Brian Bassett appeals his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public

intoxication. 1 He argues the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove

he harassed, annoyed, or alarmed someone as required by Indiana Code section

7.1-5-1-3(a)(4) (2012) and, thus, the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On the late evening of May 20, 2017, Officer Jamal Abdullah responded to a

911 call that a person had “been standing there having trouble standing,

stumbling for over two hours.” (Tr. Vol. II at 6.) Upon his arrival, Officer

Abdullah observed Bassett lying on the steps of a church. Officer Abdullah

woke Bassett and noticed Bassett had glassy eyes, his speech was slurred, his

breath smelled of alcohol, and he was unable to stand without assistance.

[3] Officer Abdullah asked Bassett for identification, and Bassett initially was

unable to remove his wallet from the back pocket of his pants. Upon

ascertaining Bassett’s identity, Officer Abdullah was “concerned about his

condition, his well-being,” (id. at 10), so Officer Abdullah requested a medic.

After the medic left, Officer Abdullah arrested Bassett.

[4] On May 21, 2017, the State charged Bassett with Class B misdemeanor public

intoxication and alleged Bassett was intoxicated in a public place and

1 Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4) (2012).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 “harassed, annoyed or alarmed another person.” (App. Vol. II at 15.) On

August 16, 2017, the trial court held a bench trial. Officer Abdullah was the

only witness. After his testimony, the trial court asked the parties to prepare

briefs on the issues in the case.

[5] On September 6, 2017, the trial court found Bassett guilty as charged. On the

same day, the trial court sentenced Bassett to 180 days, with 4 days executed

and 176 days suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision [6] When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in support of a conviction, we will

consider only probative evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s

judgment. Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736, 737 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. The

decision comes before us with a presumption of legitimacy, and we will not

substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Id.

[7] We do not assess the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence in

determining whether the evidence is sufficient. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144,

146 (Ind. 2007). Reversal is appropriate only when no reasonable fact-finder

could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Thus, the evidence is not required to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence and is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be drawn from it to

support the verdict. Id. at 147.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 [8] To prove Bassett committed Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, the State

had to present evidence Bassett was “in a public place or a place of public resort

in a state of intoxication” caused by his use of alcohol and he harassed,

annoyed, or alarmed another person. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4) (2012).

Bassett does not dispute he was intoxicated on alcohol in a public place.

Instead, he argues the State did not present evidence he harassed, annoyed, or

alarmed another person.

[9] During Bassett’s bench trial, Officer Abdullah answered, “Yes” when asked by

the State, “Sir, I don’t want to put any words in your mouth, but would it be

fair to categorize your concern over the Defendant as having been alarmed?”

(Tr. Vol. II at 11.) The State rested after that question, and Bassett did not cross

examine Officer Abdullah. Bassett contends the State was required to provide

additional evidence of Bassett’s alarming behavior. We disagree.

[10] In bench trials, we assume the judge knows and follows the applicable law.

Leggs v. State, 966 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Here, in addition to

Officer Abdullah’s affirmative answer to a question regarding whether he was

alarmed at Bassett’s condition, the State presented evidence Bassett was so

intoxicated that he was unable to stand or walk, was barely able to remove his

wallet from his pocket, and had slurred speech and glassy eyes. In response to

Bassett’s condition, Officer Abdullah immediately requested the assistance of a

medic to ensure Bassett’s safety. Bassett’s argument is an invitation for us to

reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot

do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 or judge the credibility of witnesses). While we agree the evidence is scarce, the

State presented testimony from which the trial court could infer Bassett’s guilt.

See Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. 2014) (evidence sufficient for

reasonable fact finder to infer Thang committed Class B misdemeanor public

intoxication).

Conclusion [11] The State presented sufficient evidence Bassett was intoxicated in a public place

and alarmed another person, as required to prove Class B misdemeanor public

intoxication. Accordingly, we affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5