Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-523 | July 21, 2015 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

Patricia Caress McMath

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Eric P. Babbs

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Clayton Labarr,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 21, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1411-CR-523

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Shatrese Flowers, 

Judge Pro Tempore.

Cause No. 49G19-1407-CM-34952

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-523 | July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 5

[1] Clayton Labarr appeals his conviction for Public Intoxication,1 a class B 

misdemeanor. Labarr argues that there is insufficient evidence establishing that 

he was endangering his own life. Finding sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In the early morning hours of July 12, 2014, Indiana State Excise Police Officer 

Randy Weitzel was outside of Brothers Bar and Grill on Broad Ripple Avenue 

when he saw a taxicab minivan pull up to the curb. The taxi driver asked 

Officer Weitzel for help in removing two men, later identified as Labarr and his 

brother, Cory Labarr, from the taxi.

[3] Officer Weitzel approached the taxi and observed Labarr lying down on the 

floor of the van between two seats. Officer Weitzel poked Labarr in the leg and 

shook his foot, asking him to sit up and get out of the van, but Labarr was 

nonresponsive. To remove Labarr from the van, Officer Weitzel grabbed 

Labarr’s wrist and forcibly pulled him out of the van. Labarr then stood for a 

“brief moment” as Officer Weitzel handcuffed him, but as the officer escorted 

Labarr to the curb, Labarr’s legs went limp and he was unable to walk. Tr. p. 

12, 15-16. Officer Weitzel noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Labarr’s person 

and breath.

 

1

Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-523 | July 21, 2015 Page 3 of 5

[4] As Officer Weitzel seated Labarr on the curb next to his brother, Labarr 

collapsed onto Cory’s lap. Officer Weitzel called for an ambulance, and before 

the ambulance arrived, Labarr vomited into his brother’s lap and onto the 

street. Labarr was unconscious during most of this time; although the officers 

were able to rouse him momentarily, he “never really came to[.]” Id. at 18. 

Labarr was taken to Eskenazi Hospital, where he spent part of the night before 

being transported to jail.

[5] On July 12, 2014, the State charged Labarr with class B misdemeanor public 

intoxication. Following a bench trial on October 16, 2014, the trial court found 

Labarr guilty as charged, sentencing him to 180 days, fully suspended, and 

ordered him to complete forty-eight hours of community service. Labarr now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Labarr’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support 

the conviction. When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, 

we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. McClellan v. 

State, 13 N.E.3d 546, 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Instead, we 

consider only the probative evidence supporting the conviction and the 

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is substantial 

evidence of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder could have 

drawn the conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, 

then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-523 | July 21, 2015 Page 4 of 5

[7] To convict Labarr of class B misdemeanor public intoxication, the State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in a public place, in a 

state of intoxication caused by alcohol use, and that he endangered his own life. 

I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1). Labarr argues that there is insufficient evidence 

supporting the State’s allegation that he endangered his own life.

[8] Our Supreme Court has explained that in public intoxication cases, as in all 

other cases, “when determining whether the elements of an offense are proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder may consider both the evidence and the 

resulting reasonable inferences.” Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. 2014) 

(emphasis original). In other words, inferences with respect to the elements of 

the public intoxication statute must “be based on supporting evidence of 

probative value.” Id.

[9] Here, the record reveals that when Officer Weitzel first encountered Labarr, he 

was unconscious on the floor of a minivan. Not only was Labarr not wearing a 

seat belt, he was not even sitting in a seat. Throughout nearly the entire 

incident, Labarr was unconscious, nonresponsive, and unable to stand or walk. 

He did not display an awareness of his surroundings or interactions. He 

eventually passed out onto his brother and vomited into the street.

[10] We find that this evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable inference that 

Labarr endangered himself. He was transported in a minivan without a seat 

belt and without sitting in a seat. He was unconscious and, without the officer’s 

assistance, would have been left on a public street near a busy bar in the middle 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-523 | July 21, 2015 Page 5 of 5

of the night. Labarr’s state of intoxication left him vulnerable to injuries 

resulting from traffic accidents, falling down, and being victimized by 

passersby.

[11] Labarr directs our attention to two cases that he contends support his argument. 

We find both to be distinguishable. In Sesay v. State, the defendant’s public 

intoxication conviction was overturned where he had been “standing peaceably 

several feet off the road beside a car that had been driven into a ditch.” 5 

N.E.3d 478, 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Sesay seemed unsteady on 

his feet but never fell over. In Davis v. State, the defendant was seen stumbling 

around outside in the common areas of an apartment complex, but there was 

no evidence that he had approached the busy roads outside of the complex. 13 

N.E.3d 500, 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In the instant case, however, Labarr was 

unconscious throughout nearly all of the incident, which occurred directly on a 

busy road. Therefore, we find both Sesay and Davis inapposite.

[12] Based on the evidence in the record, the trial court could reasonably conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Labarr was intoxicated in a public place while 

endangering his own life. We reject Labarr’s claim of insufficient evidence.

[13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.