Haynes v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Haynes v. State

563 N.E.2d 159, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1577, 1990 WL 193819

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 1990

Docket49A02-9001-CR-40

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 563 N.E.2d 159 (Haynes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes v. State, 563 N.E.2d 159, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1577, 1990 WL 193819 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

SHIELDS, Presiding Judge.

Arthur E. Haynes, Jr. appeals his conviction for public intoxication on the grounds the evidence is insufficient to sustain it.

We reverse.

Proof Haynes was in a public area is an essential element of the State’s case. IC 7.1-5-1-3 (1988). The evidence Haynes was intoxicated on the porch of a private residence is insufficient to support his conviction for public intoxication. State v. Culp (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 823, transfer denied. The evidence Haynes was intoxicated in an area off the porch is similarly deficient because there is no evidence the area “off” the porch is a public area.

The arresting officer, while standing on the curb, observed Haynes as he stood screaming and yelling on the front porch of a private residence. As the officer approached Haynes he ordered Haynes off the porch; Haynes complied. At some un-designated place between the curb and the porch, Haynes and the officer were within two (2) to three (3) feet of each other. It was at this time the officer made the observations that led him to conclude Haynes was intoxicated. However, those observations are unavailing without some evidence the “undesignated place” was a public area. Haynes’s conviction cannot stand.

Judgment reversed.

SULLIVAN, J., concurs. BUCHANAN, J., dissents with separate opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHIELDS, Presiding Judge.

Arthur E. Haynes, Jr. appeals his conviction for public intoxication on the grounds the evidence is insufficient to sustain it.

We reverse.

Proof Haynes was in a public area is an essential element of the State’s case. IC 7.1-5-1-3 (1988). The evidence Haynes was intoxicated on the porch of a private residence is insufficient to support his conviction for public intoxication. State v. Culp (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 823, transfer denied. The evidence Haynes was intoxicated in an area off the porch is similarly deficient because there is no evidence the area “off” the porch is a public area.

The arresting officer, while standing on the curb, observed Haynes as he stood screaming and yelling on the front porch of a private residence. As the officer approached Haynes he ordered Haynes off the porch; Haynes complied. At some un-designated place between the curb and the porch, Haynes and the officer were within two (2) to three (3) feet of each other. It was at this time the officer made the observations that led him to conclude Haynes was intoxicated. However, those observations are unavailing without some evidence the “undesignated place” was a public area. Haynes’s conviction cannot stand.

Judgment reversed.

SULLIVAN, J., concurs. BUCHANAN, J., dissents with separate opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 N.E.2d 159, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1577, 1990 WL 193819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-state-indctapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack