ILNews

Man still drunk despite change in public intoxication statute, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 2012 change in Indiana’s public intoxication statute adding a required charging element of at least harassing, annoying or alarming another person doesn’t negate a conviction for a man who the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled did at least that much.

In Christopher Naas v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1301-CR-4, the defendant argued that his Class B misdemeanor public intoxication conviction in Marion Superior Court should be tossed because there was insufficient evidence to show he was intoxicated and breached the peace and/or annoyed or alarmed another person.

Naas was among a trio of men who drove to a westside Indianapolis gas station on Sept. 20, 2012, after being involved in a traffic incident with a man and woman in another car. Police were dispatched to the station where an officer witnessed Naas “yelling and walking aggressively toward the male and female as they backed away from him and tried to ‘de-escalate the situation.’”

The officer said Naas met the traditional elements of the P.I.charge: he smelled of alcohol, was unsteady, and had slurred speech and red, watery eyes. There also was a half-empty whiskey bottle on the floorboard of his car.

“We agree that the evidence of the parties backing away is sufficient to infer that Naas alarmed them when he yelled and walked in an aggressive manner toward them,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in a unanimous, six-page ruling. “Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence of intoxication and alarming others constitutes substantial evidence of probative value to support Naas’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.”
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT