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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT