ILNews

Court upholds public intoxication conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who refused to leave the side of a friend’s mother after she was hit while crossing the street in Indianapolis had his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday. The court found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Josiah Williams visited several bars in downtown Indianapolis when he ran into his friend who was celebrating her 21st birthday. His friend’s mother, Michelle, came downtown to pick up her daughter and her friends, but was hit while crossing a downtown street. Williams and several others went to Michelle’s side.

When police tried to clear the street and large crowd that had gathered so emergency responders could get through, Williams refused and eventually had to be physically escorted to the sidewalk. Officers observed the smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and that Williams was unsteady on his feet. He was later charged with public intoxication and found guilty at a bench trial.

The state had to prove that Williams was in a public place or place of public resort on the street in a state of intoxication caused by his alcohol use and that he endangered his life or the life of another person; breached the peace; or harassed, annoyed or alarmed another person.

In Josiah Williams v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1211-CR-878, the Court of Appeals pointed out based on the record, the evidence shows Williams was on a public street, and that he was intoxicated. The trial court found the testimony of the officers more credible, and the Court of Appeals will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT