J.S.H., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA (2002)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

J.S.H. (J.H.) appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor.

We affirm.

ISSUE

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support J.H.'s conviction.

FACTS

While on patrol at approximately 3:30 a.m. on January 21, 1999, South Bend Police Officer Dan Moryl (Moryl) noticed a truck proceeding northbound in the 300 block of Eddy Street which was weaving in its lane of traffic. Moryl testified to the dry road conditions under which he witnessed the truck drift from its lane and hit a snow-covered curb in the 600 block of Eddy Street at the intersection with Sorin Street. The truck then corrected and was forced to maneuver around a parked car. Moryl proceeded down Eddy Street approximately one car length behind the truck and eventually encountered a red traffic light at the intersection of Eddy Street, Corby Boulevard and South Bend Avenue, where the truck had stopped. The truck then made a proper right-hand turn onto South Bend Avenue.

Moryl did not turn right onto South Bend Avenue, but later caught up with the truck at Edison Street. At the intersection of Edison and State Road 23, Moryl observed the truck in the inside lane, again weaving and crossing the yellow line. Moryl testified that he did not pull the truck over at that point because he was gathering as much evidence against the driver as he could since, in his experience, it was sometimes difficult for drivers to keep a car going perfectly down the road without drifting.

At the intersection of Edison and Ironwood near 28th Street, the truck again crossed the yellow line. At this time, Moryl activated his lights to perform a traffic stop. The truck continued until just north of 30th Street. After the truck had stopped, Moryl approached the driver's side of the vehicle and asked for the driver's license and registration, which identified the driver as J.H. After the traffic stop, Moryl observed that there was a strong odor of alcohol coming from the truck. Additionally, he observed that J.H.'s eyes were watery or glassy, his speech was slurred, and when he asked J.H. to walk back to the patrol car, J.H.'s gait was staggered. Moryl further testified that he did not administer any field sobriety tests because he observed J.H. was already having difficulty walking, and he might fall and injure himself if asked to perform a field sobriety test. Moryl then read the implied consent statement to J.H., after which J.H. refused both a blood draw and a breath test. Moryl then arrested J.H. for driving while intoxicated and the refusal of the tests, and explained to J.H. why he was being arrested.

DECISION

J.H. complains that his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated is not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, J.H. appears to contend that the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated due to the fact that Moryl initially did not stop him because he did not think J.H. manifested evidence of endangerment to others or to himself and was not intoxicated. J.H. also seems to argue that at no time was any other person — including Moryl – forced to take any evasive action. We disagree.

“In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will affirm the conviction unless, considering only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment, and neither reweighing the evidence nor judging the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Scruggs v. State, 737 N.E.2d 385, 386 (Ind. 2000).

In order to convict J.H. of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a class A misdemeanor, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that J.H. operated a vehicle while intoxicated. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2. In challenging the jury's verdict that he operated his vehicle while intoxicated, J.H. correctly notes that the statute defines “intoxicated” as “under the influence of (1) alcohol ․ so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties to an extent that endangers a person.” Weaver v. State, 702 N.E.2d 750, 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(citing Ind. Code § 9-13-2-86). The element of endangerment is established by showing that the defendant's condition or driving manner could have endangered any person, including public, police, or defendant himself. Id. (citing Blinn v. State, 677 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)) (emphasis added).

In this case, Moryl testified that while operating his truck, J.H. initially weaved slightly inside his lane of traffic. Subsequently, Moryl testified that J.H. had operated his vehicle such that it crossed the yellow traffic dividing line on more than one occasion. While J.H. did not actually cause harm to another driver, this evidence, in addition to Moryl's detection of the strong odor of alcohol in J.H.'s vehicle, his glassy eyes, slurred speech, and staggered gait is sufficient to show that J.H. was intoxicated and endangered himself.

We have found that evidence of speeding and weaving from side-to-side in a lane of traffic, the law enforcement officer's detection of the odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and a red face, and a defendant who is unsteady on his feet is sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was impaired to such extent as to endanger any person and to properly convict the defendant of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Puskac v. State, 536 N.E.2d 299, 301 (Ind. Ct. App 1989). While Moryl testified that at no time did he observe J.H. exceed the posted speed limit, he did observe J.H. weaving in his lane of traffic and hit a snow-covered curb. Although Moryl did not testify that J.H.'s eyes were bloodshot, evidence of watery or glassy eyes, testified to here by Moryl, has been held by this court to be sufficient to establish impairment for proof of intoxication. Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

J.H. does not dispute the testimony of Moryl as to his driving manner, nor Moryl's detection of the strong odor of alcohol inside the truck, and/or his description of J.H.'s eyes, speech, and gait at the time of the traffic stop. This evidence is sufficient to sustain J.H.'s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

We affirm.

DARDEN, Judge

SHARPNACK, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.