Kayniece B. Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 30, 2016
• Docket: 79A02-1511-CR-1911
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 30 2016, 8:32 am

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steven Knecht Gregory F. Zoeller Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Katherine Modesitt Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kayniece B. Davis, August 30, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1511-CR-1911 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Laura Zeman, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D04-1306-CM-398

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1511-CR-1911 | August 30, 2016 Page 1 of 6 [1] Kayniece B. Davis challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting her

conviction of Class B Misdemeanor public intoxication. 1 We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 1, 2013, Davis called the police to report an intruder was attempting to

enter her home. Lafayette Police Department Officers Jacob Daubenmier and

William Meluch responded. When the officers arrived, Davis became “irate,”

(Tr. at 20), and began “yelling that she didn’t need [the officers’] help, she’ll

take care of it herself[.]” (Id. at 5.) “Yelling and cursing,” (id. at 5), she left her

home and started walking down the street, saying, “[S]he’ll take care of it; she’ll

go get him[.]” (Id. at 6.) Officer Daubenmier was concerned at this point

because he had arrested her previously for stabbing another person.

[3] Officer Daubenmier noted an “odor of alcoholic beverage on her exhaled

breath.” (Id.) He also noticed Davis “had watery, bloodshot eyes; her balance

was really poor.” (Id.) Officer Meluch could hear Davis yelling at Officer

Daubenmier from “half a block if not further away[.]” (Id. at 16.) Officer

Meluch also noted Davis’ “eyes were watery and bloodshot[.]” (Id. at 17.) He

“noted the odor of an alcoholic beverage and . . . that she was unsteady on her

feet.” (Id.)

1 Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3 (2012).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1511-CR-1911 | August 30, 2016 Page 2 of 6 [4] Davis’ friend arrived on the scene to help calm her down, but he was

unsuccessful, telling the officers: “he didn’t think he could get her under

control.” (Id. at 7.) The officers arrested Davis and she fought their attempt to

place her in handcuffs. The State charged her with public intoxication for being

intoxicated in a public place and “breach[ing] the peace or [being] in imminent

danger of doing so [or] harass[ing], annoy[ing] or alarm[ing] another person.”

(App. at 9.)

[5] At trial, Davis argued she had only consumed one alcoholic beverage, was

upset because of the intruder, and was “irate, because as soon as [the officer]

pulled up he was you know, referring back to that – we - - (inaudible) - - our

last, our last, our last – the last time I seen him basically which was when he

was arrested [sic] me for the stabbing[.]” (Tr. at 20.) The trial court found her

guilty and stated: “Her intoxication caused her actions; her anger caused her

actions but anger does not cause you to be unsteady on your feet[.]” (Id. at 30.)

Discussion and Decision [6] The State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Davis’ conviction. 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. 2007), 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. We do not assess the

credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence in determining whether the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1511-CR-1911 | August 30, 2016 Page 3 of 6 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 may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at

147.

[7] The public intoxication statute provides four conditions by which a person may

be convicted of the crime. Davis was charged with only two of these: “breaches

the peace” or “harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.” Ind. Code § 7.1-5-

1-3(a)(3&4). She asserts the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove

she committed the sections of the statute with which she was charged. 2 To

convict Davis of public intoxication as charged, the State had to prove she was

intoxicated in a public place and “breach[ed] the peace or [was] in imminent

danger of breaching the peace; or harasse[d], annoy[ed], or alarm[ed] another

person.” Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3&4). 3 To prove Davis breached the peace,

the State had to prove she violated “public peace, order or decorum.” State v.

Hart, 669 N.E.2d 762, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “It is a violation or

disturbance of the public tranquility or order and includes breaking or

2 A person may also be convicted of public intoxication if, while intoxicated in a public place, she endangers a person’s life. Davis asserts the State proved only endangerment, with which she was not charged. As the evidence was sufficient to convict her of the offense as charged, we need not address endangerment. 3 On appeal, Davis does not claim she was not intoxicated in a public place.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1511-CR-1911 | August 30, 2016 Page 4 of 6 disturbing the public peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.”

Id.

[8] Davis was yelling in the middle of the night as she walked down the middle of

the street. She was stating she would “go get him[.]” (Tr. at 6.) The officers

believed her statement evidenced an intent to find the alleged intruder and

commit violence against him. When approached by her friend, she still would

not calm down. Davis admitted she was “irate” with one of the officers

because “he immediately started speaking on my past which is the stabbing I

did – I had no respect for him after that because he had none for me.” (Id. at

20.)

[9] Screaming in the street in the middle of the night and threatening violence can

be a breach of the peace. See Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366, 371 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2013) (defendant’s state of intoxication together with his belligerence

towards police officers was sufficient for the trial court to find he had breached

the peace). Davis’ arguments in her Reply Brief that her statements did not

indicate violence toward anyone or that the violence was not imminent are

invitations to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Drane, 867

N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence on appeal.) Nor was

the State required, as Davis suggests, to prove she had in fact disturbed any

specific neighbor’s peace. See Whited v. State, 256 Ind. 386, 389, 269 N.E.2d

149, 151 (1971) (proof of a crowd gathering is not requisite to a conviction for

breach of peace), opinion clarified on other grounds, 256 Ind. 618, 271 N.E.2d 513

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1511-CR-1911 | August 30, 2016 Page 5 of 6 (1971). For all these reasons, we affirm Davis’ conviction of public

intoxication.

Conclusion [10] As the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction as charged,

we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1511-CR-1911 | August 30, 2016 Page 6 of 6