Gerald Spaulding, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 21, 2016
• Docket: 49A05-1605-CR-1039
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2016, 8:15 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 Timothy J. Burns Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gerald Spaulding, Sr., December 21, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1605-CR-1039 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Carol Ann Terzo, Appellee-Plaintiff Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G12-1509-CM-31304

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Gerald Spaulding, Sr., appeals his conviction following a bench trial for class A

misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. His sole assertion on

appeal is that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] A little after midnight on September 3, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department Officer Evan Meyer was patrolling on Lafayette Road in

Indianapolis when he noticed in his rearview mirror that a pickup truck was

approaching his vehicle from behind. Officer Meyer was traveling at the speed

limit, which was thirty-five miles per hour, and he observed that the pickup was

traveling at a high rate of speed as it quickly caught up to his police vehicle. In

addition to the high rate of speed, Officer Meyer observed that the pickup truck

was weaving back and forth on the road. Officer Meyer pulled to the side of the

road so that the pickup truck could pass him, and then he pulled out behind the

truck and began following it. Officer Meyer again observed that the driver was

“moving from the fog lane to like the lane marker” and “was generally weaving

back and forth between the two lines.” Tr. at 9. After following the pickup

truck for approximately “half a mile,” Officer Meyer conducted a traffic stop.

Id.

[3] Officer Meyer approached the driver of the vehicle, who was later identified as

Spaulding, and explained why he had stopped him. Officer Meyer observed

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6 that Spaulding “had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his person” and that

his eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy. Id. at 10. Spaulding told Officer

Meyer that he had consumed two beers at a strip club on his way home. Officer

Meyer administered three field sobriety tests to Spaulding. Spaulding passed

the horizontal Gaze nystagmus test, but failed the nine-step walk-and-turn test,

and the one-leg-stand test. Based upon his observations, Officer Meyer believed

that he had probable cause to request Spaulding to take a certified breath test.

Officer Meyer read the implied consent law to Spaulding, and Spaulding agreed

to take the breath test. Officer Meyer transported Spaulding to the northwest

district police headquarters and administered the test. The result of the test

indicated that Spaulding had a blood alcohol content of .138 grams per 210

liters of breath. Officer Meyer then arrested Spaulding. Further investigation

revealed that Spaulding’s driver’s license was suspended due to a prior

conviction within the last ten years.

[4] The State charged Spaulding with Count I, class A misdemeanor operating a

vehicle while intoxicated, Count II, class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle

with an ACE of .08 or more, and Count III, class A misdemeanor operating a

vehicle while suspended. Following a bench trial on March 9, 2016, the trial

court found Spaulding guilty of Counts I and II, and not guilty of Count III.

During sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions and entered judgment

of conviction only as to Count I. This appeal ensued.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Discussion and Decision [5] Spaulding contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495,

499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative

evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the

trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will

not disturb it. Id. at 500.

[6] To convict Spaulding of class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while

intoxicated, the State was required to prove that Spaulding operated a vehicle

while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-

2(b). The term “intoxicated” is defined as “under the influence of … (1)

alcohol … so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the

loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86.

[7] Spaulding first asserts that the State failed to prove that he was impaired.

Impairment can be proven based on 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.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918

N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied (2010). Here, Officer Meyer

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6 testified that Spaulding smelled of alcohol, had red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes,

and he failed two out of three field sobriety tests. This evidence was sufficient

to demonstrate that Spaulding was impaired. His alternative explanations for

why he smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and failed the tests are simply

invitations for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which

we cannot do.

[8] Spaulding also maintains that the State failed to prove that he operated his

vehicle in a manner that endangered a person. To prove endangerment, the

State was required to present evidence “showing that the defendant’s condition

or operating manner could have endangered any person, including the public,

the police, or the defendant.” Id. Although the State must submit proof of

endangerment that goes beyond mere intoxication, see Outlaw v. State, 929

N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010), expressly adopting Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2009), 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.” Vanderlinden, 918 N.E.2d. 644-45.

[9] The State clearly met its burden of proof here. The evidence demonstrated that

Spaulding drove his pickup truck at a high rate of speed while weaving back

and forth within the driving lane. Indeed, Officer Meyer’s vehicle was initially

directly in front of Spaulding’s vehicle and in harm’s way when Officer Meyer

first observed Spaulding driving in this manner. It was the trial court’s

prerogative, as the trier of fact, to conclude that this manner of operation could

have endangered any person, including the public, Officer Meyer, or Spaulding.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Spaulding’s assertions to the contrary are again simply requests for us to

reweigh the evidence, and we cannot. The State presented sufficient evidence

to support Spaulding’s conviction for class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle

while intoxicated. Therefore, we affirm his conviction.

[10] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1605-CR-1039 | December 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6