Billie K. Hoots v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                              FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                     May 25 2017, 9:42 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                       CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                        Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Victoria L. Bailey                                      Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Marion County Public Defender Agency                    Attorney General of Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Lyubov Gore
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Billie K. Hoots,                                        May 25, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    49A04-1611-CR-2539
    v.                                              Appeal from the Marion Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable Clayton A.
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                     Graham, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    49G07-1609-CM-37942
    Bailey, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1611-CR-2539 | May 25, 2017    Page 1 of 6
    Case Summary
    [1]   Billie K. Hoots (“Hoots”) appeals his conviction for Public Intoxication, as a
    Class B misdemeanor,1 raising for our review the sole issue of whether there
    was sufficient evidence of intoxication to sustain the conviction.
    [2]   We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   On September 26, 2016, at around 3 a.m., Megan Ridley (“Ridley”) was
    leaving her job as an emergency department nurse at Eskenazi Hospital in
    Indianapolis. Earlier that night, Ridley had been the nurse who performed an
    initial check-in of Hoots into the emergency department at the hospital.
    [4]   As Ridley got into her car, she saw Hoots walking nearby in the parking lot, but
    lost sight of him. Soon thereafter, Ridley heard her car’s rear driver-side door
    open, and saw Hoots standing outside her car. Frightened, Ridley accelerated
    her car and pulled away from the parking space.
    [5]   Ridley called Deputy Tony Matthews (“Deputy Matthews”), a member of the
    security force at Eskenazi Hospital. Deputy Matthews went to the location
    Ridley specified in her call and found Hoots standing in the parking lot.
    1
    Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1611-CR-2539 | May 25, 2017   Page 2 of 6
    [6]   Hoots did not alert to Deputy Matthews’s approach until he tapped Hoots on
    the shoulder. Deputy Matthews asked Hoots to consent to a pat-down search,
    and Hoots agreed to the search. Deputy Matthews handcuffed Hoots and
    performed a search. Soon after this, other security officers arrived, including
    Deputy Zachary Dodson (“Deputy Dodson”), who issued Miranda advisements
    to Hoots. Hoots indicated that he understood his rights, and, in response to
    questions from the officers, stated that he had been a patient at the hospital but
    was discharged, and had consumed too much methamphetamine. Hoots was
    then arrested.
    [7]   On September 26, 2016, the State charged Hoots with Unauthorized Entry into
    a Vehicle and Public Intoxication, each as Class B misdemeanors.
    [8]   On November 3, 2016, a jury trial was conducted. Upon Hoots’s motion, the
    trial court entered a directed verdict in Hoots’s favor on the charge of
    Unauthorized Entry of a Motor Vehicle.2 The jury subsequently found Hoots
    guilty of Public Intoxication. Hoots was sentenced to 180 days imprisonment,
    with ninety days suspended to probation.
    [9]   This appeal ensued.
    2
    I.C. § 35-43-4-2.7(d).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1611-CR-2539 | May 25, 2017   Page 3 of 6
    Discussion and Decision
    [10]   Hoots’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence of
    intoxication to sustain his conviction. Our standard of review for such
    challenges is well settled:
    This court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility
    of witnesses. Cox v. State, 
    774 N.E.2d 1025
    , 1028 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2002). Only the evidence most favorable to the judgment,
    together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn
    therefrom will be considered. 
    Id. If a
    reasonable trier of fact
    could have found the defendant guilty based on the probative
    evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, then a
    conviction will be affirmed. 
    Id. at 1028–29.
    Sargent v. State, 
    875 N.E.2d 762
    , 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
    [11]   To convict Hoots of Public Intoxication, as charged, the State was required to
    prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoots was in a public place or place of
    public resort in a state of intoxication caused by Hoots’s use of a controlled
    substance, namely, methamphetamine, and that Hoot’s conduct was harassing,
    annoying, or alarming to Ridley. See I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4); App’x Vol. 2 at 18.
    Hoots contends that there was insufficient evidence of his intoxication based
    upon the nature of the testimony offered by Deputies Matthews and Dodson.
    In the absence of appropriate testimony or other evidence establishing
    intoxication, Hoots argues, the only other evidence of his intoxication was his
    own nonjudicial post-Miranda admission of methamphetamine use, which was
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1611-CR-2539 | May 25, 2017   Page 4 of 6
    insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction under the doctrine of corpus
    delecti.
    [12]   Concerning Deputies Matthews’s and Dodson’s testimonies as insufficient to
    sustain the conviction, Hoots argues that the record is “devoid of any evidence
    regarding Hoots’s reflexes” or “impaired attention”; that there was no evidence
    that Hoots had “watery or bloodshot eyes,” smelled of methamphetamine, or
    had failed a field sobriety test. (Appellant’s Br. at 11.) However, it is sufficient
    that an officer testifies that it was his opinion “that, based upon his training and
    experience,” a defendant was intoxicated. Woodson v. State, 
    966 N.E.2d 135
    ,
    142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “The State need not present separate proof of
    impairment of action, impairment of thought, and loss of control of faculties to
    establish an individual’s intoxication.” 
    Id. Rather, the
    defendant’s condition is
    to be considered “as a whole,” and impairment of any one of the foregoing
    abilities is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 
    Id. [13] Here,
    Deputy Matthews testified that when he encountered Hoots, Hoots “was
    just kind of standing there in almost a daze.” (Tr. at 74.) Deputy Matthews
    acknowledged that Hoots was compliant with instructions and indicated that he
    understood his Miranda rights, but, when Deputy Matthews asked Hoots why
    he was in a parking lot instead of waiting at the Emergency Room entrance for
    his ride, Hoots stated that “he couldn’t really remember.” (Tr. at 77.) Deputy
    Matthews further testified on cross-examination that he had both training and
    experience in identifying intoxicated persons, that Hoots’s “actions were out-of-
    sorts,” and that Hoots “showed a level of impairment as well.” (Tr. at 118.)
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1611-CR-2539 | May 25, 2017   Page 5 of 6
    [14]   Deputy Dodson offered similar testimony. He characterized Hoots’s demeanor
    as “kind of scared, manic,” and stated that “I could just tell from [Hoots’s]
    behavior, from training and experience or other situations I’ve dealt with, I
    believed it was something to do with … some kind of amphetamine, how he
    was acting.” (Tr. at 139.) Deputy Dodson further testified that Hoots “kept
    apologizing, saying he was sorry” and asking that they not arrest him “because
    he wouldn’t see his son again.” (Tr. at 140.)
    [15]   Hoots draws our attention to the lack of an expert-introduced list of signs of
    methamphetamine intoxication. Our case law already addresses the need for
    such specific information, and has held that it is not necessary. See 
    Woodson, 966 N.E.2d at 142
    (stating that a non-expert’s training and experience is
    sufficient to establish evidence of intoxication). The testimony offered by
    Deputies Matthews and Dodson was thus sufficient to establish that Hoots was
    intoxicated.3 Taken together with Hoots’s post-Miranda-advisement statement
    that he had consumed methamphetamine, there was sufficient evidence to
    sustain the conviction.
    [16]   Affirmed.
    Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.
    3
    Because we conclude there was evidence other than Hoots’s own extrajudicial statement, the doctrine of
    corpus delecti is inapposite here.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1611-CR-2539 | May 25, 2017             Page 6 of 6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A04-1611-CR-2539

Filed Date: 5/25/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/25/2017