Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

929 N.E.2d 196

Outlaw v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 2010

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 2010-06-24

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2018

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Thus, we hold that the State was required to submit proof of “endangerment” that went beyond mere intoxication in order for the defendant to be convicted of operating while intoxicated, as a Class A misdemeanor. Here, the traffic stop of Outlaw’s vehicle was based on a non-illuminated license plate rather than erratic or unlawful driving, and no evidence other than the intoxication suggests that Outlaw was operating his motor vehicle in a manner that would endanger himself, his three passengers, or any other person. Indeed, the State concedes that “there is no evidence that [Outlaw] operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner ...””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Tin Thang v. State of Indiana

Applies IN 9 § 9-30-5-2

Relies on Outlaw v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-06-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 In 2001, the legislature established two separate misdemeanor classes for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Operating a vehicle while "intoxicated" is a Class C misdemeanor. See Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2(a) (2004). Operating a vehicle while intoxicated "in a manner that endangers a person" is a more serious Class A misdemeanor. See I.C. § 9-30-5-2(b) (2004).

¶2 Here, there was evidence Outlaw was intoxicated, including that he smelled of aleohol, his eyes were bloodshot, his speech slurred and he failed three field sobriety tests. The State concedes, however, there was no evidence that Outlaw operated his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Outlaw was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor and was sentenced to 365 days.

¶3 The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction on grounds that, although the State proved Outlaw was intoxicated, the State failed to present any evidence on the element of endangerment. See Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind.Ct.App.2009).

¶4 The State has petitioned to transfer jurisdiction, arguing that evidence of "intoxication" should be sufficient to prove "endangerment" as was the case before the current version of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2. See Outlaw, 918 N.E.2d at 381-82. We conclude the Court of Appeals correctly rejected the State's argument for the reasons explained in its decision.

¶5 We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the opinion of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). The Class A misdemeanor conviction is reversed.

*197 SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
/929/ne2d/196 · .json · Public domain