Kaleigh Hix v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 7, 2015
• Docket: 49A04-1502-CR-70
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 07 2015, 9:55 am 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 Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kaleigh Hix, October 7, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1502-CR-70 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Carl E. Van Dorn, Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G07-1410-CM-49024

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Kaleigh Hix appeals her convictions for disorderly conduct and public

intoxication, both as Class B misdemeanors, following a bench trial. Hix

presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented

sufficient evidence to support her convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On October 25, 2014, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Hix went to the Grove Sports

Bar in Beech Grove to pick up her friend Angela Beck. When Hix arrived, she

found Beck outside the bar engaged in a heated argument with a woman named

Courtney. Hix exited her vehicle, “grab[bed] Beck by [her] jacket,” and Hix

and Beck started towards the car. Tr. at 23. Jessica Portillo, a friend of

Courtney’s, came up behind Beck as they walked to the car, and Hix and

Portillo began to “fight in the middle of the street[.]” Id. at 8. Approximately

twenty people were in the street watching the fight, and the crowd blocked

traffic.

[3] Beech Grove Police Officer Nathan Rinks was driving by the bar when he saw

Hix and Portillo engaged in a physical altercation in the street. Officer Rinks

pulled up, exited his vehicle, and yelled at the women to stop fighting, but they

continued to fight. Officer Rinks then “separated them and put ‘em both in

handcuffs.” Id. at 8-9. Officers Rinks “could tell [Hix] had been drinking. She

had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, [and] her eyes were somewhat

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 2 of 5 glassy.” Id. at 10. Beech Grove Police Captain Kellen Malloy arrived to assist

Officer Rinks and observed that Hix was intoxicated.

[4] The State charged Hix with disorderly conduct and public intoxication, both as

Class B misdemeanors. The trial court found Hix guilty as charged and entered

judgment accordingly. The trial court sentenced Hix to ten days for each count,

all suspended, and the court ordered Hix to complete thirty-two hours of

community service. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Hix contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her

convictions. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is

well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

[6] To convict Hix of disorderly conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was

required to prove that Hix recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engaged in

fighting or tumultuous conduct. Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(1). Hix’s sole

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 3 of 5 contention on appeal is that the State did not present sufficient evidence to

show that she engaged in tumultuous conduct. Hix does not challenge the

sufficiency of the evidence to prove that she engaged in fighting. Because

Officer Rinks testified that he saw Hix fighting with Portillo, the evidence is

sufficient to support Hix’s conviction for disorderly conduct. See id.

[7] To convict Hix of public intoxication, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was

required to prove that Hix: was found in a public place; in a state of

intoxication caused by her use of alcohol; and either breached the peace or was

in imminent danger of breaching the peace. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3). On

appeal, Hix challenges the State’s evidence with respect to two of the elements

of the offense: whether she was intoxicated and whether she breached the

peace. But we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence on both

challenged elements.

[8] Indiana Code Section 9-13-2-86 defines intoxication in pertinent part as under

the influence of alcohol “so that there is an impaired condition of thought and

action and the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.” Impairment can

be established by evidence of the following: “(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; and

(6) slurred speech.” Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Here, Officer Rinks testified that he “could tell [Hix] had been drinking. She

had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, [and] her eyes were somewhat

glassy.” Tr. at 10. And Captain Malloy testified that Hix: had a strong odor of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 4 of 5 alcoholic beverage on her breath; had bloodshot and watery eyes; and had

slurred speech. The evidence was sufficient to show that Hix was intoxicated.

[9] A breach of the peace includes all violations of public peace, order or decorum.

Lemon v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1190, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “It is a violation or

disturbance of the public tranquility or order and includes breaking or

disturbing the public peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.”

Id. (quoting State v. Hart, 669 N.E.2d 762, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). Here,

Hix’s fight with Portillo in the middle of a public street was loud and drew a

crowd of approximately twenty people, which blocked traffic. The State

presented sufficient evidence to support Hix’s conviction for public

intoxication.

[10] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1502-CR-70| October 7, 2015 Page 5 of 5