Title: Curtis Outlaw v. State of Indiana

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Barbara J. Simmons  
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Oldenburg, Indiana   
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael Gene Worden 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S02-1006-CR-328 
 
 
CURTIS OUTLAW, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff  below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court,  
No. 49F19-0901-CM-4126 
The Honorable Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, Judge  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0904-CR-340 
_________________________________ 
 
June 24, 2010 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
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.  
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Jun 24 2010, 2:11 pm
 
2 
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). 
 
 
Here, there was evidence Outlaw was intoxicated, including that he smelled of alcohol, 
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.   
 
 
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).   
 
 
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.   
 
 
 
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.   
 
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.