Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 6

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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William Ryan,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 20, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1606-CR-1468

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Rebekah PiersonTreacy, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G19-1603-CM-10662

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] William Ryan appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor public 

intoxication. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Ryan raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to 

sustain his conviction.

Facts

[3] On March 19, 2016, Officer John Walters of the Indianapolis Metropolitan 

Police Department was working off-duty at Tiki Bob’s Cantina in Indianapolis. 

Officer Walters was in uniform standing with his marked police car in front of 

the business. Officer Walters saw the bar’s staff physically remove Ryan from 

the business, place him on the sidewalk, and tell him to leave. Ryan was “very 

aggressive” toward the bar’s staff, using profanity, and “pretty belligerent.” Tr. 

p. 9. Officer Walters noticed that Ryan had slurred speech and red and glassy 

eyes, smelled of alcohol, wavered while he stood, and staggered when he 

walked. Ryan stood “with balled fists” at the entrance of the bar. Id. at 11. 

Employees had to stop letting people into the bar to deal with Ryan. Officer 

Walters approached Ryan and told him to leave, and Ryan became 

“belligerent” with the officer and started “cussing” at him. Id. at 12. Officer 

Walters repeatedly told Ryan to leave, and Ryan “[g]ot right in [the officer’s] 

face,” stood “in [the officer’s] face with balled fists,” and repeatedly demanded 

the officer’s badge number, which the officer repeatedly provided. Id. at 13, 15. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6

At one point, Officer Walters had to push Ryan away because he was so 

belligerent and in the officer’s face. Because of Ryan’s aggressive behavior and 

failure to leave the area, Officer Walters thought there was “an imminent 

chance for him to start a physical fight or to entice somebody else to fight with 

him.” Id. Officer Walters then arrested Ryan.

[4] The State charged Ryan with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and 

alleged that he had either breached the peace or was in imminent danger of 

breaching the peace. After a bench trial, Ryan was found guilty as charged. 

The trial court sentenced him to twenty days in jail and 270 days of probation. 

Ryan now appeals.

Analysis

[5] Ryan argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. When 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal 

conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. 

State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence 

supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from 

such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative 

value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant 

was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 

[6] Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3) makes it a Class B misdemeanor “for a 

person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication 

caused by the person’s use of alcohol . . . , if the person . . . breaches the peace 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 6

or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace . . . .” Ryan argues that the 

evidence was insufficient to prove that he was intoxicated or that he breached 

the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace.

[7] Indiana Code Section 9-13-2-86 defines “intoxicated” as “under the influence of 

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

the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.” “Impairment can be 

established by evidence of: (1) the consumption of a significant amount 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; and (7) slurred speech.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 

644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

[8] Ryan testified that he had been drinking on the evening in question. Officer 

Walters noticed that Ryan had slurred speech and red and glassy eyes, smelled 

of alcohol, wavered while he stood, and staggered when he walked. Ryan was 

belligerent and aggressive during the confrontation with the bar’s staff and 

during his interaction with Officer Walters. Ryan argues that he was merely 

agitated because he had been “unfairly thrown out of the bar” and because 

Officer Walters would not listen to his complaints. Appellant’s Br. p. 11. 

Ryan’s argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we 

cannot do. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Ryan was intoxicated. 

[9] Next, Ryan argues that he did not breach the peace and that he was not in 

imminent danger of breaching the peace. A breach of the peace includes all 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 6

violations of public peace, order, or decorum. Lemon v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1190, 

1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). A breach of the peace is “a violation or disturbance 

of the public tranquility or order and includes breaking or disturbing the public 

peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.” Id. Our supreme 

court has stated that violence, either actual or threatened, is an essential 

element of breaching the peace. Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 960 n. 6 (Ind.

1993).

[10] Here, the State presented evidence that, after being forcibly removed from the 

bar and placed on the sidewalk, Ryan was belligerent and aggressive with 

Officer Walters. Officer Walters repeatedly told Ryan to leave, and Ryan “[g]ot 

right in [the officer’s] face,” stood “in [the officer’s] face with balled fists,” and 

repeatedly demanded the officer’s badge number, which the officer repeatedly 

provided. Tr. p. 13, 15. At one point, Officer Walters had to push Ryan away 

because he was so belligerent and in the officer’s face. Given the evidence that 

Ryan balled up his fists, repeatedly got in Officer Walters’s face, was belligerent 

and aggressive, and refused to leave the area despite several instructions to do 

so, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to show that Ryan threatened 

violence and disturbed the public tranquility or order. The evidence is sufficient 

to show that Ryan breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching 

the peace. See Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366, 370-371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) 

(holding that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find the defendant 

guilty of public intoxication where he was extremely intoxicated, staggered 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 6

from side to side, refused to move off of the street, was belligerent with the 

officers, and jerked away from officers).

Conclusion

[11] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Ryan’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor 

public intoxication. We affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.