Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 1 of 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William R. Grimes,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 10, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1583

Appeal from the Sullivan Superior 

Court

The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

77D01-1805-CM-328

Mathias, Judge.

[1] William R. Grimes (“Grimes”) appeals his conviction of Operating While 

Intoxicated as a Class C Misdemeanor from the Sullivan Superior Court. He 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 2 of 10

argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove the charge beyond 

a reasonable doubt. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 15, 2018, around 10:15 a.m., Lieutenant William Snead (“Lieutenant 

Snead”) with the Sullivan County Sherriff’s Department observed Grimes 

driving in his vehicle. Lieutenant Snead saw that the passenger side of the 

windshield on Grimes’s vehicle was shattered and caved in. Lieutenant Snead 

had stopped Grimes approximately two months earlier and had warned him 

not to drive until he had fixed his windshield. Because Grimes was still driving 

this vehicle and had not fixed the windshield, Lieutenant Snead activated his 

emergency lights in order to initiate a traffic stop. 

[4] Grimes put his arm out of the window in order to acknowledge Lieutenant 

Snead; however, Grimes continued to drive. Lieutenant Snead pulled up next 

to Grimes and told him to “pull over, pull over.” Tr. p. 9. However, Grimes 

continued driving. After continuing to drive a bit more, Grimes eventually 

pulled over into a nearby field. When Lieutenant Snead approached the vehicle, 

he asked Grimes why it took so long for him to pull over. Grimes responded 

that he was “just trying to get off the road.” Tr. p. 12. When asked about the 

windshield, Grimes responded that he had not had time to get the windshield 

fixed. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 3 of 10

[5] Grimes provided Lieutenant Snead his driver’s license, and Lieutenant Snead 

asked for Grimes’s registration. Grimes searched through his glove box and 

handed the Lieutenant his insurance information. Lieutenant Snead explained 

that he did not need insurance information and again asked Grimes for his 

registration. Grimes searched his glove box for about thirty to forty more 

seconds before producing his registration. 

[6] The lieutenant, observing a screw driver on the dashboard, asked Grimes to 

step out of his vehicle. He asked Grimes if he had any weapons on him, and 

Grimes informed the Lieutenant that he had a knife on him and placed the 

knife on the driver’s seat of the car. Lieutenant Snead noticed another knife on 

Grimes and removed this second knife. He then conducted a pat-down for 

weapons which did not produce any further weapons. 

[7] Lieutenant Snead observed that Grimes was behaving differently than during 

his previous interactions with Grimes. Specifically, Grimes was slow to respond 

to the officer’s questions. He had a slow reaction speed in general, moving and 

speaking slowly. Lieutenant Snead also observed that Grimes’s pupils were 

constricted to the size of pinpoints as if a bright light was shining in his eyes 

although Grimes was parked in the shade. 

[8] Lieutenant Snead returned to his vehicle in order to request a second officer. He 

also ran a check on Grimes’s license and registration. He then returned to 

Grimes’s vehicle and administered field sobriety tests. He performed the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 4 of 10

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (“HGN”) test, the one-leg stand test, and the walk 

and turn test. 

[9] When Lieutenant Snead administers the walk and turn test, he observes to see if 

the individual uses arms to balance, does not touch heel to toe, starts too early, 

loses balance, steps off the line, or turns improperly. When Grimes performed 

the walk and turn test, he stepped off the line three different times. He also 

walked “in a big U” to turn around instead of keeping one foot on the ground 

and pivoting to turn around. Tr. p. 17. 

[10] During the one-leg stand test, the individual being tested is to stand with his or 

her arms to their sides, “hold one leg up in the air, look at their foot, hold it up 

about six inches and count to thirty by going one thousand one, one thousand 

two, all the way to thirty.” Tr. p. 18. Grimes skipped a couple numbers when 

counting to thirty, but Lieutenant Snead graded Grimes as passing this 

particular test. 

[11] When Lieutenant Snead administered the HGN test, he asked Grimes if he had 

any problems with his eyes. Grimes indicated that he did not see well out of one 

of his eyes; but he did not indicate that would be a problem for completing the 

test. Lieutenant Snead observed a lack of “smooth pursuit,” and his eye showed 

nystagmus before the forty-five degree onset where the eyes involuntarily 

twitch. Tr. p. 16. 

[12] The lieutenant scored Grimes as failing the walk and turn test and the HGN

test. After administering these tests, Lieutenant Snead began to read Grimes the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 5 of 10

implied consent warning in order to administer a chemical test. Grimes then 

asked Lieutenant Snead, “well what if I would have had smoked marijuana a 

couple days ago[? T]hat would be in my system.’” Tr. p. 21. After Lieutenant 

Snead informed Grimes that smoking marijuana a couple days ago would not 

have an effect on him at that moment, Grimes stated, “[w]ell, I’m not saying I 

smoked marijuana two days ago.” Tr. p. 21. 

[13] At some point during Lieutenant Snead’s interactions with Grimes, Deputy 

Copeland arrived as back-up. Because Grimes was “argumentative” with 

Lieutenant Snead regarding his decision to arrest him, Deputy Copeland also

performed field sobriety tests on Grimes. Lieutenant Snead observed, but did 

not participate, in the second set of field sobriety tests. He remained by his 

vehicle, away from the interactions between Deputy Copeland and Grimes. 

[14] Deputy Copeland testified that upon arriving at the scene, he noticed the 

cracked windshield and that Grimes’s eyes “‘look[ed] terrible’” Tr. p. 45. He 

also observed his speech and movements to be slow compared to his prior 

encounter with Grimes.

1 In part because Grimes was complaining about 

Lieutenant Snead’s administration of the field sobriety tests, Deputy Copeland 

administered the HGN Test, the walk and turn test, and the one-leg stand test. 

He observed that Grimes started the walk and turn test a bit early and with the 

wrong foot. He also took ten steps instead of nine and missed placing his feet 

 

1 Deputy Copeland was also present during the prior interaction when Lieutenant Snead issued Grimes a 

warning for driving with a cracked windshield. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 6 of 10

heel to toe on a few steps. With respect to the second administration of the oneleg stand test, Grimes started early and swayed a little bit but did not miss any 

counting. Deputy Copeland administered the tests on the asphalt, and 

Lieutenant Snead administered the tests on an area with gravel and dirt. 

[15] Lieutenant Snead ask Grimes once again if he would submit to a chemical test. 

When Grimes responded that he would not, Lieutenant Snead handcuffed 

Grimes. Lieutenant Snead testified that he arrested Grimes for Operating While 

Intoxicated, because his actions and movements were slow. His state of mind 

was not consistent with his previous observations of Grimes. Moreover, Grimes

failed two of the three field sobriety tests administered, his pupils were 

constricted, and he had difficulty pulling over when Lieutenant Snead initiated 

the traffic stop. 

[16] Grimes was then transported to the Sullivan County Jail. Here, Rick 

Loudermilk, a parole agent, observed Grimes between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.

in a holding cell later that same day. When Loudermilk arrived at the cell, 

Grimes was asleep on the floor. After Loudermilk woke up Grimes, 

Loudermilk observed that Grimes appeared intoxicated. He specifically 

observed that Grimes’s eyes were glazed over and that Grimes seemed slow to 

respond and process the conversation. Loudermilk had had several interactions 

with Grimes in the past, and he testified that he had never seen Grimes act in 

the manner he had on the day in question. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 7 of 10

[17] Bobbie Pirtle, Grimes’s friend, was in the passenger seat the day Grimes was 

arrested. She testified that she has known Grimes all of her life. She was with 

him all morning. She testified she did not observe him taking any drugs or 

substances. She also testified that she believes Grimes does not drink. She 

agrees that Grimes was not understanding Lieutenant Snead’s commands and 

was trying to help Grimes understand the commands until Lieutenant Snead 

“told [her] to shut up.” Tr. p. 69. She stated she did not notice anything 

unusual about his actions that morning. She also testified that in 2012, Snead 

was in a car accident and his speech has been slower ever since. 

[18] Faye Pirtle, grandmother to Grimes, also testified on behalf of Grimes. She also 

stated that Grimes has had trouble with one of his eyes as a result of a previous 

car accident. She stated she was driving by during the interactions between

Grimes and Lieutenant Snead. Lieutenant Snead motioned for her to continue 

on down the road, but she called to Grimes, “are you okay?” Tr. p. 79. Faye 

testified that Grimes seemed fine during that interaction. 

[19] The trial court held a bench trial on June 1, 2018. After the bench trial, the trial 

court found him guilty of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated and 

sentenced him to sixty days executed. Grimes now appeals his conviction

Discussion and Decision 

[20] Upon a challenge to a conviction based on the sufficiency of evidence to 

support a conviction, a reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge 

the credibility of the witnesses. Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 8 of 10

2001). Appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170, 

1173 (Ind. 2002). We “must affirm ‘if the probative evidence and reasonable 

inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of 

fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” McHenry v State, 

820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005) (citing Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111–12 

(Ind. 2000). A conviction may be based upon circumstantial evidence alone. 

Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Reversal is 

appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences 

as to each material element of the offense. Id. 

[21] In order to convict Grimes of his charge of operating a vehicle while 

intoxicated, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he 

was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2. The 

evidence is clear that Grimes was operating a motor vehicle, and Grimes does 

not dispute that he was operating a motor vehicle. However, Grimes disputes 

that the State met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that that he 

was intoxicated. Grimes attributes his slow dexterity to a prior head injury, 

poor vision in one eye, and feeling groggy from waking up shortly before the 

traffic stop. “Intoxicated” is defined by the Indiana Code section 9-13-2-86 as: 

under the influence of:

(1) alcohol;

(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 9 of 10

(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;

(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3;

(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) 

through (4); or

(6) any other substance, not including food and food 

ingredients (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-20), tobacco (as 

defined in IC 6-2.5-1-28), or a dietary supplement (as 

defined in IC 6-2.5-1-16); 

so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and 

the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties. 

[22] “The State need not present separate proof of impairment of action, impairment 

of thought, and loss of control of faculties to establish an individual’s 

intoxication.” Woodson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 135, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. 

denied. An individual’s impairment is determined by considering his capability 

as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of these

three abilities equals impairment. Id. “Evidence of the following can establish 

impairment: (1) the consumption of significant amounts of alcohol; (2) 

impaired attention and reflexes; (3) watery or bloodshot eyes; (4) the odor of 

alcohol on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; (6) failure of field sobriety tests; (7) 

slurred speech.” Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)

(quoting Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1583 | April 10, 2019 Page 10 of 10

[23] Here, three officials who had prior encounters with Grimes testified that his 

attention and processing were impaired. Deputy Copeland testified that, on the 

day in question, Grimes’s eyes appeared “terrible.” Lieutenant Snead testified 

that Grimes’s pupils appeared severely constricted even when in the shade. 

Grimes was slow to pull over and had difficulty providing Lieutenant Snead 

with his registration. Grimes failed two out of the three field sobriety tests 

administered, unable to walk on the line. Several hours later, a parole agent 

who also had prior interactions with Grimes observed him in the holding cell at 

the jail. The parole agent also observed that Grimes appeared to be intoxicated 

because his eyes were glazed over and he was slow to process the conversation 

and the interactions between the two. Grimes’s friend admitted his processing 

was slow that day but that he had an unspecified head injury in a car accident 

in 2012. Grimes’s grandmother testified that he seemed fine when she asked 

him a question as she drove by. Grimes’s request for this court to believe his 

friend and grandmother is a request to judge credibility and reweigh the 

evidence, which we will not do. 

Conclusion

[24] The record in this matter contains sufficient evidence regarding Grimes’s

impairment and intoxication. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction for 

operating a vehicle while intoxicated. 

[25] Affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.