ROBINSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Dominique Robinson appeals his convictions for resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor;¹ disorderly conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor;² and public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor.³ Robinson presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 24, 2024, Robinson arrived at the Hancock County Courthouse to meet with his probation officer, Justin Zirkle. Hancock County Sheriff Deputies Jay Marx and Gary Harris were stationed at the security desk and were operating the X-ray machine when Robinson entered. Deputy Marx observed that Robinson was “acting very slow, sluggish,” that he “wasn't very responsive,” and that he “appear[ed] to be intoxicated.” Tr. at 28. Robinson took “short steps ․ as if he had a balance problem.” Id at 29.

[3] Hancock County Sheriff Deputy Dan Devoy also observed that Robinson's “balance was off” and that he was taking “weird steps.” Id. at 50. Deputy Devoy asked Robinson if he was having a medical emergency. Robinson was “slow to respond” and “weaving back and forth a little bit.” Id. at 29-30. When Robinson responded, Robinson was “slurring” and “not making eye contact,” and Deputy Devoy was able to smell “the odor of an alcoholic beverage” on Robinson. Id. at 51. Zirkle, who had been notified of Robinson's arrival, went to the security checkpoint to see Robinson. Zirkle observed that Robinson was “slurring his speech” and “swaying.” Id. at 66.

[4] Deputy Devoy escorted Robinson to a chair, and Deputy Harris asked Robinson to submit to a portable breath test, but Robinson refused. Robinson became “irate and agitated,” and he “started cursing and yelling” at the deputies. Id. at 68. Robinson then began arguing “loudly” with Deputy Harris, repeatedly saying, “What did you say? What did you say?” Id. at 34. Robinson became “very belligerent with his language,” and his voice was “very loud[.]” Id. at 52-53. Robinson stated to one of the deputies: “I will f***ing kill you.” Id. at 68. At that time, there were “probation meetings” and people were voting in the building, and Robinson was causing a “huge ruckus.” Id. at 35, 69. People in the building began “coming out and looking around and seeing what was going on and asking [the deputies] what was happening.” Id. at 36. Deputy Marx told Robinson to lower his voice “multiple times.” Id. at 34. Robinson did not comply.

[5] Because Robinson had not been “cooperative” and “had been disruptive and disorderly,” Deputy Marx asked Robinson to stand up in order to be placed in restraints. Id. at 37. Robinson refused “multiple orders” before finally standing up. Id. Robinson's arms were “flailing around,” and he “swiped” his arm toward Deputy Marx. Id. at 38, 63. At some point, Robinson threatened “to kick [Deputy Marx's] a**.” Id. at 47. Ultimately, the three deputies were able to restrain Robinson, and Robinson submitted to a portable breath test. The results “register[ed] enough to ․ cover Public Intoxication.” Id. at 61.

[6] The State charged Robinson with resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor; disorderly conduct, as a Class B misdemeanor; and public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court held a bench trial, at which Deputy Marx, Deputy Devoy, and Zirkle testified. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court found Robinson guilty as charged and sentenced him to an aggregate term of one year executed in the Hancock County Jail. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Robinson asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[8] On appeal, Robinson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support all three of his convictions. We address each argument in turn.

Resisting Law Enforcement

[9] To show that Robinson resisted law enforcement, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was engaged in the execution of the officer's duties. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1). On appeal, Robinson asserts that the evidence does not support his conviction because he “chose not to engage with security officers when questioned by them” and because his refusal to submit to a breath test and answer questions “were not a threat to the officers.” Appellant's Br. at 9.

[10] As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained, “a person ‘forcibly’ resists, obstructs, or interferes with a police officer when he or she uses strong, powerful, violent means to impede an officer in the lawful execution of his or her duties.” Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind. 2013). While the statute does not demand complete passivity, the force involved need not rise to the level of mayhem. Id. Even a modest level of resistance, including stiffening one's arms when an officer grabs them to position them for cuffing, might support the offense. Id.

[11] Here, the State presented evidence that, after officers asked Robinson to submit to a portable breath test, he became irate and loud, and he refused to comply with officers’ instructions. At that point, the officers decided to restrain Robinson. Robinson refused “multiple orders” before finally standing up. Tr. at 37. Robinson's arms were “flailing around,” and he “swiped” his arm toward Deputy Marx. Id. at 38, 63. It took all three deputies to restrain Robinson, and they ultimately had to place leg shackles on him because he kept “aggressively” standing up even after he was handcuffed. Id. at 69. Based on those actions, which were more than merely stiffening one's arms, we hold that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Robinson forcibly resisted law enforcement. Accordingly, we affirm that conviction.

Disorderly Conduct

[12] To support his conviction for disorderly conduct, the State was required to demonstrate that Robinson recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally made unreasonable noise and continued to do so after being asked to stop. See I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(2). Robinson contends that the State failed to prove that his “verbal responses to security officers at the entrance of the county courthouse interfered with either a police investigation or those conducting business in the courthouse itself.” Appellant's Br. at 10. And he maintains that “there was no evidence that anyone in the probation office heard him or was in any way disrupted” such that his verbal responses to the officers constituted unreasonable noise. Id.

[13] But the evidence most favorable to the judgment demonstrates that, after the deputies asked Robinson to submit to a portable breath test, Robinson caused a “huge ruckus.” Tr. at 69. Indeed, the evidence shows that he started cursing and yelling at officers, that he argued “loudly” with Deputy Harris, and that he became “belligerent with his language.” Id. 34, 52. And Robinson's voice was loud enough that it disrupted probation meetings and voting, and that people in the building began “coming out and looking around and seeing what was going on and asking [the deputies] what was happening.” Id. at 36. Deputy Harris asked Robinson to lower his voice multiple times, but Robinson did not comply. Based on that evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Robinson made unreasonable noise and continued to do so after being asked to stop. The State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction for disorderly conduct.

Public Intoxication

[14] Finally, to support his conviction for public intoxication, the State was required to prove that Robinson was in a public place or place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by his use of alcohol and that he breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace. See I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3). On appeal, Robinson does not dispute that he was in a public place. Rather, he contends that the State failed to prove that he was intoxicated because “the evidence was not sufficient to establish that [he] had an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of his faculties.” Appellant's Br. at 11.

[15] As this Court has stated, impairment can be established by evidence of the consumption of a significant amount of alcohol, impaired attention and reflexes, watery or bloodshot eyes, the odor of alcohol on the breath, unsteady balance, failure of field sobriety tests, and slurred speech. See A.V. v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Here, the evidence presented at the bench trial shows that Robinson was “acting very slow, sluggish,” that he “wasn't very responsive.” and that he took “short steps ․ as if he had a balance problem.” Tr. at 28-29. When asked a question by Deputy Devoy, Robinson was “slow to respond,” and he was “weaving back and forth a little bit.” Id. at 29-30. When he responded, Robinson was “slurring” and “not making eye contact,” and Deputy Devoy was able to smell “the odor of a alcoholic beverage” on Robinson. Id. at 51. And Zirkle was able to observe that Robinson was “slurring his speech” and “swaying.” Id. at 66. In other words, the evidence shows that Robinson had the odor of alcohol on the breath, unsteady balance, and slurred speech, and Robinson failed the portable breath test. That evidence supports the court's determination that Robinson was intoxicated.

[16] Still, Robinson also contends that the evidence does not support his conviction because the State failed to show that “his actions interfered with the courthouse business or people located within the space.” Appellant's Br. at 12. However, as discussed above, Robinson was loud, argumentative, and threatened officers; he disrupted meetings and voting; and he caused people to come out of their offices to inquire into what was happening. Based on that evidence, the fact-finder could reasonably conclude that Robinson had breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace. See I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3). We therefore affirm Robinson's conviction for public intoxication.

Conclusion

[17] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Robinson's convictions for resisting law enforcement, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication. Robinson's arguments on appeal are simply requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We therefore affirm Robinson's convictions.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(2).

3.   I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3).

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.