Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1959 | January 25, 2017 Page 1 of 5

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

Megan Shipley

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Daniel Massey,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 25, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1608-CR-1959

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Amy M. Jones, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G08-1511-CM-39631

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1959 | January 25, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Following a bench trial, Daniel Massey (“Massey”) was convicted of Public 

Intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor.1 Massey now appeals, raising the sole 

issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 8, 2015, Officer Charles Ezell (“Officer Ezell”) of the Speedway 

Police Department was dispatched to a White Castle around 4:30 a.m. because 

someone was locked inside a restroom. When Officer Ezell arrived, staff 

directed him to the women’s restroom, which was still locked. Officer Ezell 

pounded on the door for several minutes with no response. Officer Ezell then 

had the Speedway Fire Department dispatched to open the door.

[3] Before the Speedway Fire Department arrived, Massey exited the restroom. 

Officer Ezell observed that Massey had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, poor 

dexterity, and was unsteady on his feet. Massey began yelling and using 

profanity. He also said he was drunk and had consumed a lot of Hennessey.

 

1

Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1959 | January 25, 2017 Page 3 of 5

[4] While Massey was yelling, there were patrons and employees in the restaurant. 

One patron was eating, but stopped and walked over toward the commotion. 

Employees also approached the commotion. At one point, Officer Ezell saw 

someone come toward the restaurant door but leave without entering.

[5] Officer Ezell arrested Massey, and on November 8, 2015, the State charged 

Massey with two counts of public intoxication but one count was dismissed 

prior to trial. Following an August 3, 2016 bench trial, Massey was convicted.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we 

neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Drane v. State, 867 

N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We consider only the evidence supporting the 

judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. 

Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We must affirm the 

conviction if there is “substantial evidence of probative value supporting each 

element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 

1066 (Ind. 2015).

[8] To convict Massey of public intoxication as charged, the State had to prove that 

Massey “harass[ed], annoy[ed], or alarm[ed] another person” while he was 

intoxicated in a public place. I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4). We “read a reasonableness 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1959 | January 25, 2017 Page 4 of 5

standard into our public intoxication statute when analyzing the term 

‘annoys.’” Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570, 576 (Ind. 2014). That is, the 

conduct at issue “must have risen to the level that would annoy the reasonable 

person.” Id. at 577.

[9] Massey concedes that he was intoxicated in a public place but challenges 

whether there was sufficient evidence that he harassed, annoyed, or alarmed 

another person. Massey directs us to Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d 879 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014). There, the defendant was a passenger of a vehicle involved in a 

traffic stop. During the stop, the defendant was loud and argued with the 

driver. At one point, a bicyclist in the area stopped. In reversing the 

conviction, a panel of this Court noted that there was no “clear nexus between 

the individual stopping and the argument” between the defendant and the 

driver. Milam, 14 N.E.3d at 882. Moreover, because there was no evidence of

the driver’s reactions, the panel concluded that there was “no evidence to 

establish the inference” that the driver was harassed, annoyed, or alarmed. Id.

at 883.

[10] Massey argues that, as in Milam, there is no clear nexus between Massey’s loud 

interaction with law enforcement and the behavior of the individual who 

decided not to enter the restaurant. As to the restaurant patron and the staff, 

Massey argues that it is unreasonable to infer that they were annoyed or 

alarmed because someone who is annoyed or alarmed “would not normally 

approach the situation to watch more closely.” (Appellant’s Br. at 13.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1959 | January 25, 2017 Page 5 of 5

[11] We disagree. Under these facts, the evidence supports the reasonable inference 

that the approaching staff and patron were annoyed or alarmed when Massey 

was intoxicated and yelling profanities in the restaurant. Moreover, a 

reasonable person would be annoyed or alarmed by such behavior. 

Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to support Massey’s conviction.

Conclusion

[12] There is sufficient evidence to support Massey’s public intoxication conviction.

[13] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and May, J., concur.