Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1710

- CR

- 2212 | May 4, 2018 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Rory Gallagher Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. At torney General of Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brian Bassett , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff May 4, 2018 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 49A02

- 1710

- CR

- 2212 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G07

- 1705

- CM

- 18827
May, Judge.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1710

- CR

- 2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 [1] Brian Bassett appeals his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. 1 He argues the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove he harassed, annoyed, or alarmed someone as required by Indiana Code section 7.1

- 5

- 1

- 3(a) (4) (2012) and , thus , the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm. 

# Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the late evening of May 20, 2017, Officer Jamal Abdullah responded to a 911 call that a person had “been standing there having trouble standing, stumbling for over two hours.” (Tr. Vol. II at 6.) Upon his arrival, Officer Abdullah o bserved Bassett lying on the steps of a church. Officer Abdullah woke Bas sett and noticed Bassett had gla ssy eyes, his speech was slurred, his breath s m elled of alcohol, and he was unable to stand without assistance.

[3] Officer Abdullah asked Bassett for ide ntification, and Bassett initially was unable to remove his wallet from the back pocket of his pants. Upon ascertaining Bassett’s identity, Officer Abdullah was “concerned about his condition, his well

- being, ” ( id . at 10), so Officer Abdullah requested a medic. After the medic left, Officer Abdullah arrested Bassett.

[4] On May 21, 2017, the State charged Bassett with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and alleged Bassett was intoxicated in a public place and

1 Ind. Code § 7.1

- 5

- 1

- 3(a)(4) (2012).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1710

- CR

- 2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 “harassed, annoyed or alarmed another person. ” (App. Vol. II at 15.) On August 16, 2017, the trial court held a bench trial. Officer Abdullah was the only witness . After his testimony, the trial court asked the parties to prepare briefs on the issues in the case.

[5] On September 6, 2017, the trial court found Bassett guilty as charged. On the same day, the trial court sentenced Bassett to 180 days, with 4 days executed and 176 days suspended to probation. 

# Discussion and Decision
[6] When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in support of a conviction , we will consider only probative evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Binkley v. State , 654 N.E.2d 736, 737 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied . The decision comes before us with a presumption of legitimacy, and we will not substitu te our judgment for that of the fact

- finder. Id

.
[7] We do not assess the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence in determining whether the evidence is sufficient. Drane v. State , 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Reversal is appropriate only when no reasonable fact

- finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id

. Thus, the evidence is not required to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innoce nce and is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id . at 147.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1710

- CR

- 2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [8] To prove Bassett committed Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, the State had to present evidence Bassett was “in a public place or a place of pu blic resort in a state of intoxication” cause d by his use of alcohol and he harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person. Ind. Code § 7.1

- 5

- 1

- 3(a)(4) (2012). Bassett does not dispute he was intoxicated on alcohol in a public place. Instead, he argu es the State did not present evidence he harassed, annoyed, or alarmed another person.

[9] During Bassett’s bench trial, Officer Abdullah answered, “Yes” when asked by the State, “Sir, I don’t want to put any words in your mouth, but would it be fair to catego rize your concern over the Defendant as having been alarmed?” (Tr. Vol. II at 11.) The State rested after that question, and Bassett did not cross examine Officer Abdullah. Bassett contends the State was required to provide additional evidence of Basset t’s alarming behavior. We disagree.

[10] In bench trials, we assume the judge knows and follows the applicable law. Leggs v. State , 966 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Here, in addition to Officer Abdullah’s affirmative answer to a question regarding w hether he was alarmed at Bassett’s condition , the State presented evidence Bassett was so intoxicated that he was unable to stand or walk, was b ar e ly a ble to remove his wallet from his pocket, and had slurred speech and glassy eyes. In response to Bassett’s condition, Officer Abdullah immediately requested the assistance of a medic to ensure Bassett’s safety. Bassett’s argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot d o. See Drane , 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court cannot reweigh the evidenceCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1710

- CR

- 2212 | May 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5 or judge the credibility of witnesses). While we agree the evidence is scarce, the State presented testimony from which the trial court could infer Bassett’s guilt. See Thang v . State , 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. 2014) (evidence sufficient for reasonable fact finder to infer Thang committed Class B misdemeanor public intoxication). 

# Conclusion
[11] The State presented sufficient evidence Bassett was intoxicated in a public place and al armed another person, as required to prove Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Accordingly, we affirm.

[12] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur

.