Chavez Miller, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Chavez Miller appeals his conviction for public intoxication, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support it. Finding there was sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Around 11:00 p.m. on November 12, 2025, Officers Butcher and Clouse of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department were dispatched to an address near the intersection of 29th Street and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. When they arrived, they saw Miller asleep in a chair a few feet from an open fire in a grassy area, next to a parking lot and a strip mall with businesses. The fire had nail-ridden wooden boards protruding out of it. Officer Butcher tried to get Miller's attention and wake him up, but Miller did not respond—even after the officer shined a flashlight on his face. A few moments later, a bystander approached Miller and woke him up by kicking his leg and touching his face. Officer Butcher tried to talk to Miller, but he did not engage with the officer. Miller then picked up a can of beer and took a drink. When the officer asked him if he was all right, Miller said, “Damn, what the f[***] am I supposed to say, s[***]?” State's Exhibit 1 at 01:46-01:48. The officer told him he was “just checking on” him. Id. at 01:48.

[3] A few seconds later, Miller stood up and leaned over the fire. In response to questions from Officer Butcher, Miller confirmed that he started the fire and that he didn't know the property owners. As they were talking, Miller started walking around the fire and appeared unsteady on his feet. Noticing this, both officers asked Miller to sit back down, but Miller ignored their requests and continued walking around the fire. When Miller started to walk away from the area, the officers grabbed him and attempted to move him toward the chair. Miller resisted their efforts, and the officers ultimately placed him in handcuffs and sat him down in the chair. They repeatedly asked Miller for his name, but he said he “d[idn't] have to do any of that.” State's Exhibit 2 at 00:47-00:49. As the interaction continued, Miller became increasingly hostile toward the officers. When the officers tried to move him to a police vehicle to take him to jail, Miller yelled profanities at them, threatened to spit on them, and tried to wrangle himself out of their grip.

[4] The next day, the State charged Miller with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor public intoxication,¹ and Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify oneself. At his bench trial in January 2026, Officer Clouse testified about the incident, and Officer Butcher's bodycam footage was admitted into evidence. After the State rested, Miller moved to dismiss all counts, arguing the State failed to meet its burden of proof. The trial court denied the motion. Miller then testified in his own defense, offering his version of the incident. He denied starting the fire but admitted that he had been drinking alcohol that day. The court found him guilty on all counts. Miller received an aggregate sentence of 365 days of which 185 days were suspended, and 180 days were to be executed. After receiving credit for time served and good time, he had twenty-one days left to serve in jail. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Miller only appeals his conviction for public intoxication, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support it. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are mindful that it is the fact-finder's role, not ours, “to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)). Additionally, “[w]e consider only the evidence most favorable to” the conviction. Id. “[T]he evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Meehan v. State, 7 N.E.3d 255, 257 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 147) (alteration in original). We will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could have found “the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)).

[6] The State charged Miller with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication under Indiana Code section 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1), meaning it had to prove that Miller: (1) was in a public place; (2) was intoxicated; and (3) endangered his own life. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1) (2025). Miller challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to each element.

1. Public Place

[7] Miller claims the State did not “present any testimony or evidence showing the nature of the space that [he] was using ․ and it cannot be presumed or speculated that [it] was a public space.” Appellant's Brief at 8. We disagree.

“A ‘public place’ does not mean only a place devoted to the use of the public.” Jones v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1095, 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)). “It also means a place that ‘is in point of fact public, as distinguished from private,—a place that is visited by many persons, and usually accessible to the neighboring public.’ ” Id.

State v. Jenkins, 898 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Christian v. State, 897 N.E.2d 503, 504-05 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied), trans. denied. Here, the officer's testimony and the bodycam footage show that Miller was in public—the officers found him sitting only feet away from a strip mall and a large parking lot. Moreover, multiple bystanders approached the area while the officers were at the scene, indicating the space was open and accessible to others. We conclude the trial court could reasonably infer from this evidence that Miller was in a public place.

2. Intoxication

[8] Next, Miller argues the only evidence presented regarding his intoxication was his “unsteady balance[,]” which was insufficient to prove he was intoxicated. Appellant's Br. at 9. He cites Staley v. State, where a panel of this Court found there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's intoxication because he “was having trouble standing on his own, his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath.” 633 N.E.2d 314, 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). The defendant fled after an officer made these observations, and when he was apprehended about two hours later, his breath sample registered a blood alcohol level of 0.14 percent. Id. at 317-18. Here, Miller contends that because only one of those factors—unsteadiness—was discussed by Officer Clouse at trial, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. However, there are several other facts that indicate Miller was intoxicated, albeit distinct from those in Staley.

[9] The record shows that it was difficult to wake Miller—he did not respond to the officer's statements or a bright flashlight being shined directly on his face. Rather, he had to be physically awakened by a bystander's kick. And even after he awoke, Miller was slow to acknowledge or respond to the officers. He then drank from a beer can and stumbled around the fire. When the officers asked him to sit down, Miller became aggressive, eventually “yelling and screaming at” them. Tr. at 7. And he became increasingly combative as the interaction continued. Miller also admitted at trial that he was drinking alcohol that day. Id. at 20. Officer Clouse testified that, based on his experience, Miller's behavior indicated he was intoxicated. See Wright, 772 N.E.2d at 460 (“With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence upon the element of intoxication, it is established that a non-expert witness may offer an opinion upon intoxication, and a conviction may be sustained upon the sole testimony of the arresting officer.”). We find there was sufficient evidence to show Miller was intoxicated.

3. Endangerment

[10] Lastly, Miller argues “the evidence shows unequivocally that [he] was not a danger to himself ․” Appellant's Br. at 9. He contends that his stumbling around the fire was not enough to show endangerment to his life and cites Sesay v. State, 5 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. There, the State argued that the intoxicated defendant endangered his life because he “could have been hit by a car as he stood several feet from the side of the road.” Sesay, 5 N.E.3d at 485. This Court reversed his public intoxication conviction because he “was standing peaceably several feet off the road beside a car” and there was no evidence that he had fallen, almost fallen, or even attempted to walk toward the roadway. Id. at 486. The Court reasoned that it is the defendant's conduct, “not the conduct of a passing motorist that is the relevant consideration[,]” and “speculation regarding things that could happen in the future is not sufficient to prove the present crime of public intoxication.” Id. at 485.

[11] Miller likens his case to Sesay, arguing that “[a]ny claim that he could have fallen into the fire is pure speculation about what might happen and cannot support a conviction.” Appellant's Br. at 9. However, both Officer Clouse's testimony and the bodycam footage undisputedly show that Miller did stumble while only inches from a fire fueled by wooden boards with nails protruding from them. Furthermore, Miller was not “peaceably” standing or sitting next to the fire throughout the incident. Rather, he became increasingly aggressive and resistant to the officers, particularly when they asked him to sit down so he would not fall into the fire and hurt himself.

[12] The Sesay panel distinguished its case from another, Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366, 370-71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), where the defendant “ignored repeated requests to move out of the street for the safety of himself and others, and actively confronted officers with belligerent and physical behavior[.]” Sesay, 5 N.E.3d at 486. Miller's case is more akin to Williams, as he put himself in danger by stumbling around an open fire and nail-ridden boards while repeatedly ignoring—and eventually, aggressively resisting—the officers’ requests that he remain seated. Now, Miller is simply requesting that we reweigh that evidence, which we will not do. We therefore conclude there was sufficient evidence to prove that Miller endangered himself.

Conclusion

[13] Finding sufficient evidence to support Miller's conviction for public intoxication, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1) (2025).

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.