Outlaw v. State

929 N.E.2d 196, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 395, 2010 WL 2539526
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 24, 2010
Docket49S02-1006-CR-328
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 929 N.E.2d 196 (Outlaw v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Outlaw v. State, 929 N.E.2d 196, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 395, 2010 WL 2539526 (Ind. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 2001, the legislature established two separate misdemeanor classes for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Operating a vehicle while "intoxicated" is a Class C misdemeanor. See Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2(a) (2004). Operating a vehicle while intoxicated "in a manner that endangers a person" is a more serious Class A misdemeanor. See I.C. § 9-30-5-2(b) (2004).

Here, there was evidence Outlaw was intoxicated, including that he smelled of aleohol, his eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred and he failed three field sobriety tests. The State concedes, however, there was no evidence that Outlaw operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Outlaw was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor and was sentenced to 365 days.

The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction on grounds that, although the State proved Outlaw was intoxicated, the State failed to present any evidence on the element of endangerment. See Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind.Ct.App.2009).

The State has petitioned to transfer jurisdiction, arguing that evidence of "intoxication" should be sufficient to prove "endangerment" as was the case before the current version of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2. See Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 381-82. We conclude the Court of Appeals correctly rejected the State's argument for the reasons explained in its decision.

We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the opinion of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). The Class A misdemeanor conviction is reversed.

*197 SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tyrone Stokes v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2026
Rita Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2020
Ricardo Bueso v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2019
Heath Poortenga v. State of Indiana
99 N.E.3d 691 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2018)
Noe Joaquin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2017
Calvin Cole v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2017
Roger Wilkinson v. State of Indiana
70 N.E.3d 392 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
929 N.E.2d 196, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 395, 2010 WL 2539526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outlaw-v-state-ind-2010.