Wanda M. Shearer, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Wanda M. Shearer (“Shearer”) was convicted after a bench trial of operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person as a Class A misdemeanor ¹ and was sentenced to 365 days, all suspended to probation. She appeals her conviction, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 9, 2021, at 7:20 a.m., a 911 caller reported a single vehicle accident at a roundabout in Whitestown, Indiana. The 911 call indicated that the driver, later identified as Shearer, was “driving erratically” and drove “straight on, into the roundabout.” State's Ex. 1 at 00:24–00:28. Lieutenant Darrick Deeter (“Lt. Deeter”) with the Whitestown Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to the scene at 7:23 a.m. Lt. Deeter had difficulty locating the vehicle as it was stuck in the middle of the roundabout and hidden by trees, bushes, and grasses in the center of the roundabout. Lt. Deeter observed Shearer standing outside of her vehicle and noticed that she was “unsteady in her balance.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 20. As Lt. Deeter began speaking with Shearer, he noticed that her speech was “slowed” and “slightly slurred,” and overall “lethargic.” Id. Additionally, he noted that Shearer's pupils were abnormally small and “pin tip.” Id. Shearer admitted to Lt. Deeter that she was the one who drove and crashed into the roundabout. Lt. Deeter called emergency medical personnel who cleared Shearer at the scene.

[3] Based on his observations of Shearer, Lt. Deeter decided to administer field sobriety tests. Due to the location of the collision, Lt. Deeter took Shearer to the police station to conduct the testing in a safe and controlled area. Once at the station, Lt. Deeter administered two field sobriety tests, which Shearer failed, and he discontinued a third test out of concern for Shearer's safety during the test. The first test was the horizontal gaze nystagmus (“HGN”) test. Shearer presented all six possible indicators of intoxication during the HGN test and began to fall asleep towards the end of the test. The second test administered was the walk and turn test, during which Shearer expressed to Lt. Deeter that she was having knee pain. Due to Shearer's knee pain and her unsteadiness, Lt. Deeter terminated the test for her well-being. The last test administered was the one leg stand, which has four possible clues that indicate intoxication. Intoxication is indicated if a person demonstrates at least two out of four clues, and Shearer presented three out of four clues.

[4] Based on the results of the tests administered, Lt. Deeter concluded there was probable cause to believe that Shearer was intoxicated when she drove her vehicle into the middle of the roundabout. After Lt. Deeter read Indiana's Implied Consent Law to Shearer, she consented to take a chemical test. At that point, she made a remark about using drugs, and Lt. Deeter then advised her of her Miranda rights. Shearer then told Lt. Deeter that she had taken prescription morphine before leaving her house that day. A blood draw was completed, and testing of Shearer's blood later indicated that she had a therapeutic amount of morphine and alprazolam in her system.

[5] The State charged Shearer with a Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. On August 30, 2024, a bench trial was held. At trial, the State presented expert testimony from Melissa Galey (“Galey”) with the Indiana State Department of Toxicology. Galey explained that morphine can cause constricted or “pinpoint” pupils, drowsiness, and lethargy, while alprazolam, a central nervous system depressant, can cause HGN indicators and make the user lethargic. Id. at 41, 44. Galey testified that both drugs can cause lethargy and relaxation, but when taken together, they can cause a more profound sedation than normal. Even at a therapeutic level, both drugs can have an impairing effect. However, she testified that impairment cannot be determined simply based upon the level of the drug in a person's blood but instead must be coupled with observations of the person. Galey testified that based on the drugs Shearer had taken and the evidence presented, she believed that Shearer was impaired by both drugs.

[6] At trial, Shearer testified that she suffers from chronic pain due to injuries she suffered in an automobile accident nineteen years ago. As a result, she was prescribed morphine and alprazolam. Additionally, Shearer testified that she had received a prior OWI conviction from driving after taking prescription medications. Shearer had taken alprazolam the night before the accident and morphine about half an hour before driving to the gas station. In addition to the alprazolam and morphine, Shearer was also prescribed and took gabapentin and pregabalin, both central nervous systems depressants. Galey explained that pregabalin can cause a person to be overly lethargic or sedated. The blood testing did not indicate a positive result for gabapentin, and the test did not evaluate for the presence of pregabalin.

[7] Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found Shearer guilty of all charges. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court entered judgment of conviction only on Shearer's conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and sentenced Shearer to 365 days, all suspended to probation. Shearer now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Shearer argues that insufficient evidence was presented to support her conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. 2016), cert. denied. A conviction will be affirmed if there is sufficient evidence supporting the trial court's decision, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to that judgment. Id. Thus, it is not necessary for the evidence to overcome every reasonable hypothesis; it will be sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn to support the judgment. Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Further, “[w]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 673 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[9] To support the conviction, the State was required to prove that Shearer operated a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a), (b). On appeal, Shearer contends that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was operating her vehicle while intoxicated, arguing the State's evidence indicated only that she was intoxicated after the accident. Shearer specifically argues that the State did not present any evidence regarding when the collision occurred or how long after the collision Lt. Deeter arrived, calling into question whether there was substantial evidence of probative value indicating that she was intoxicated at the time she crashed through the roundabout.

[10] The State may prove intoxication by demonstrating impairment. Pickens v. State, 751 N.E.2d 331, 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Impairment may be established by evidence showing, “(1) the consumption of a significant amount of [an intoxicant]; (2) impaired attention and reflexes; (3) watery or bloodshot eyes; (4) the odor of [an intoxicant] on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; and (6) slurred speech.” Awbrey v. State, 191 N.E.3d 925, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Here, the evidence most favorable to the judgment revealed that, at 7:20 a.m., a 911 call was made in which the caller described observing Shearer “driving erratically” and seeing her collide “straight on, into the roundabout.” State's Ex. 1 at 00:24–00:28. Lt. Deeter was dispatched to the scene of the crash within minutes. Once Lt. Deeter arrived at the scene, he noticed Shearer's unsteady balance. Moreover, during his conversation with Shearer, Lt. Deeter observed that Shearer was having difficulty paying attention when he asked questions, her speech was slurred, she had abnormally small pupils, and she was exhibiting lethargic behavior. Shearer also admitted to Lt. Deeter that she was the one driving the vehicle. Further, Shearer demonstrated poor manual dexterity and presented all six clues indicating intoxication of the HGN test. During the one leg stand test, Shearer displayed three out of four intoxication indicators. Expert testimony presented that impairment can be demonstrated by observations of the defendant's behavior under the particular drugs that Shearer admitted to consuming. Based on this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could infer that Shearer was impaired and thus intoxicated.

[11] Secondly, to establish that a defendant was intoxicated while operating a vehicle there must be a “reasonably defined time period in which the drinking, intoxication[,] and driving occurred.” McCray v. State, 850 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). In McCray, this court identified sufficient evidence of impaired driving where law enforcement was dispatched to investigate a hit and run, and the officer encountered the defendant within twenty minutes after receiving his dispatch report. Id. at 999, 1001. The defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, and there was evidence the defendant had been drinking at a bar before driving. Id. at 1001. The Court held that, based on the limited time between the call and law enforcement's observations of the defendant, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude the defendant drove while intoxicated. Id.

[12] Here, the 911 call occurred at 7:20 a.m., where the caller described observing Shearer driving erratically before ultimately driving straight into the middle of a roundabout. Lt. Deeter was dispatched to the scene at 7:23 a.m., and Shearer was in custody around 7:36 a.m. Therefore, from the time the 911 call was received until the time that Shearer was placed into custody, a total of sixteen minutes had elapsed. Shearer testified that she had taken all of her prescription medications before driving, having taken the alprazolam the night before and the morphine within a half hour of driving. Shearer argues that the State failed to present evidence as to when the accident occurred, that there was only evidence of impairment at some point after the crash, and therefore, there was insufficient evidence that she was intoxicated while driving.

[13] In support of her argument, Shearer relies on Flanagan v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), where two men, one intoxicated who claimed to be the driver, were found sitting on the side of the road after their car broke down. There, the court reasoned that the police officer did not know how long the two men had been on the side of the road, and that no evidence was presented as to when Flanagan had consumed alcohol. The court concluded that it was possible that the defendant was not impaired at the time of driving but instead had become intoxicated at some point after the car broke down. Here, Shearer testified that she had recently taken two prescription medications—alprazolam the night before the accident and morphine about half an hour before driving. Unlike in Flanagan, there was no dispute that the intoxicating substances were consumed before driving, and there was no significant delay between operation of the vehicle and the observations of impairment recorded at the scene. Moreover, whereas Flanagan involved a car that broke down, here, Shearer was observed crashing into the roundabout no more than a few minutes prior to the placement of the 911 call at 7:20 a.m. Lt. Deeter was dispatched to the scene at 7:23 a.m. and Shearer was placed into custody by 7:36 a.m. The reasonable inferences from the largely uncontested facts in this case clearly support the finding that Shearer was intoxicated while operating her motor vehicle.

[14] Considering the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment, we, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support Shearer's conviction for operating while intoxicated endangering a person as a Class A misdemeanor.

[15] Affirmed

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a), (b).

Foley, Judge.

Judges Kenworthy and Scheele concur. Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.